why we should abolish the death penalty essay

Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments

Life without Parole

Retribution

Victims’ Families

Methods of Execution

Medical Professionals’ Participation

Federal Death Penalty

1. Legality

The United States is one of 55 countries globally with a legal death penalty, according to Amnesty International. As of Mar. 24, 2021, within the US, 27 states had a legal death penalty (though 3 of those states had a moratorium on the punishment’s use).

Proponents of the death penalty being legal argue that such a harsh penalty is needed for criminals who have committed the worst crimes, that the punishment deters crime, and that the US Supreme Court has upheld the death penalty as constitutional.

Opponents of the death penalty being legal argue that the punishment is cruel and unusual, and, thus, unconstitutional, that innocent people are put to death for crimes they did not commit, and that the penalty is disproportionately applied to people of color.

People who view this page may also like:

States with the Death Penalty and States with Death Penalty Bans
US Executions by Race, Crime, Method, Age, Gender, State, & Year
Should Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal?

ProCon/Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 325 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 200 Chicago, Illinois 60654 USA

Natalie Leppard Managing Editor [email protected]

History of the Death Penalty
Top Pro & Con Quotes
Historical Timeline
Did You Know?
States with the Death Penalty, Death Penalty Bans, and Death Penalty Moratoriums
The ESPY List: US Executions 1608-2002
Federal Capital Offenses
Death Row Inmates
Critical Thinking Video Series: Thomas Edison Electrocutes Topsy the Elephant, Jan. 4, 1903

Cite This Page

Artificial Intelligence
Private Prisons
Space Colonization
Social Media
Death Penalty
School Uniforms
Video Games
Animal Testing
Gun Control
Banned Books
Teachers’ Corner

ProCon.org is the institutional or organization author for all ProCon.org pages. Proper citation depends on your preferred or required style manual. Below are the proper citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order): the Modern Language Association Style Manual (MLA), the Chicago Manual of Style (Chicago), the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), and Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (Turabian). Here are the proper bibliographic citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order):

[Editor's Note: The APA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

[Editor’s Note: The MLA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

Death Penalty: Why the Death Penalty Should be Abolished Essay

To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
As a template for you assignment

(Yes) Nicole Smith – An Argument in Favor of Capital Punishment

(no) stephen nathanson – why we should put the death penalty to rest, my evaluation, my opinions of the arguments, works cited.

The death penalty involves condemning a criminal to death due to a horrendous crime (Roberts-Cady 185). Its existence in the criminal justice system remains is a subject of contention. Stephen Nathanson advances an argument against the death penalty in his article, Why We Should Put the Death Penalty to Rest, by refuting the moral and legal grounds upon which its proponents base their arguments. In a separate article, An Argument in Favor of Capital Punishment, Nicole Smith shows that despite the mounting opposition towards the death penalty, there is reason to keep it in the penal code. These two articles form the core of this essay since its main concern is to determine which one of the two arguments is stronger.

The gist of Nicole Smith’s (Smith par. 1-8) argument is that the death penalty or capital punishment is necessary because it deters murder, thereby saving the victims’ families and friends the pain of losing loved ones. She further argues that in cases where a murder has occurred, the death penalty serves justice to the victim’s loved ones.

Smith’s position on the killing of innocent individuals is apparent. She esteems human life and strongly argues against the killing of innocent individuals. She argues that since victims die and are oblivious of what transpires afterwards, the point of concern is the agony that their loved ones undergo. According to Smith, these people deserve nothing less than retribution. Smith quotes a famous biblical expression, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”, to support her argument (par. 2). Since the criminal takes away human life, the only punishment that is commensurate with such an act is to take their life as well. Although she recognizes that the criminal justice system may sometimes err and convict innocent people, she downplays such possibilities on grounds that the error margin is negligible.

Nathanson for his part presents two major arguments in support of his position. Firstly, he argues that the death penalty violates the same values it is supposed to promote (Nathanson 124). For instance, if a criminal receives a death sentence, the only circumstance under which the conviction can be justified, is when the justice system determines beyond any doubt that the convicted individual is the perpetrator of the said crime. Unfortunately, sometimes the system captures and convicts innocent individuals. According to Nathanson (124), the execution of just one innocent individual due to lapses within the justice system contradicts the value of justice.

Secondly, Nathanson refutes the claims that the death penalty preserves human life. Murderers are guilty of killing and so is the justice system when it sentences an individual to death (124). The ideal of respect for human life denies anyone authority over another person’s life under whatever circumstances. Therefore, even if one is guilty of murder, their life is equally important because they are also human. Executing such a person over claims of respect for the life of the victim is inconsistent with the principle of respect for human life.

I esteem ethics and I believe that matters of life and death, such as those presented in these arguments can only be evaluated adequately by the use of relevant ethical theories. The ethical theories that can best evaluate this issue include utilitarianism and Kantian ethics. In utilitarianism, the merit of an action is evaluated by its consequences. From this perspective, Smith’s argument seems plausible because she places emphasis on the effects of murder on the victim’s loved ones. To strengthen the argument further, she adds that it serves the greater good to execute a criminal to avoid the recurrence of murder cases by the same individual. Therefore, if a single individual is executed to save an entire society from pain, suffering, and mayhem such as that caused by serial killers; it is understandable (Berns and Bessette 1).

However, according to Kantian ethics, although it is wrong to kill, executing one person in an attempt to pay for the death of another is not plausible. Executing a criminal to pay for another death is tantamount to assuming that two wrongs can make a right (Gray 257). This assumption does not make sense at all. This position is consistent with Nathanson’s argument that executing a criminal for whatever reason is inconsistent with the belief in the sanctity of life. It is therefore hypocritical to assume that the criminal’s life is of less value in comparison to the victim’s life.

Additionally, the criminal justice system is notorious for some unforgivable lapses that often lead to the incarceration of innocent people (Nathanson 124). Even if only one out of every a thousand convicts is innocent, the system cannot claim to serve justice. The life of that single innocent individual is precious. Moreover, even the 999 who are rightfully convicted do not deserve to die. Their lives are equally important and should be protected by the same system.

While Smith’s argument seems plausible at the superficial level, it is not entirely ethical. It is equally unethical for a criminal to kill an innocent victim, but the idea of punishing murder by death is certainly outdated and has no place in modern society. Human society has advanced in many ways and has abandoned the wisdom of its ancient ancestors, which did not seem to make sense. It would, therefore, be plausible to apply the same standard to the death penalty debate. Even the bible, which is the source of the principle, cautions against it in the second testament. Therefore, using such a principle as the basis for dispensing capital punishment cannot be right by any standards.

Nathanson’s argument is, therefore, more endearing because it shows that no matter the angle of perception, the death penalty remains unreasonable. He points out an important issue in the debate about the death penalty by arguing that both sides cite justice and respect for human life as the values they seek to promote in their arguments. Then he proceeds to show that the death penalty does not serve justice in all cases and is therefore wrong.

He also shows beyond doubt that the death penalty undermines the sanctity of life. Therefore, it’s being part of the penal code allows some unscrupulous individuals to use it for their selfish gain. As such, it should be abolished altogether. Countries that do not have the death penalty, such as Britain have much lower murder cases compared to the U.S. Therefore, proponents of the death penalty, such as Smith, who claims that its removal will cause a rise in murder cases have no ground to make such claims.

In conclusion, both arguments seem to appeal to the sense of reason. However, based on one underlying belief, the distinction can be made as to which argument is more plausible. Although there are circumstances, under which I believe in utilitarianism, in this case, Kantian ethics carry the day. Nathanson’s arguments sound more reasonable to me because I believe that no human being has authority over the life of another whatsoever. Since no element of bias is identifiable in both arguments, my position is that the death penalty should be abolished.

Berns, Walter and Joseph Bessette. “Why the Death Penalty is Fair.” Wall Street Journal , Eastern edition ed.: 1. 1998. ProQuest. Web.

Gray, James P. “Essay: Facing Facts on the Death Penalty.” Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 44.3 (2011): 255-264. Academic Search Complete . Web.

Nathanson, Stephen. “Why We Should Put the Death Penalty to Rest.” Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics 15 (2005): 124.

Roberts-Cady, Sarah. “Against Retributive Justifications of the Death Penalty.” Journal of Social Philosophy 41.2 (2010): 185-193. Academic Search Complete . Web.

Smith, Nicole. An Argument in Favor of Capital Punishment. Article Myriad. 2011. Web.

“Marriage Story” Film Analysis
Fitzgerald’s “Hero” in “Tender Is the Night”
Components of the disorder found in O.J. Simpson’s personality.
Christopher Buckley’s “Supreme Courtship”
Social Injustices in U.S Courts
The Use of the Exclusionary Rule
Psychiatric and Psychoanalytic Methodologies: The Problems of Use in Justice
Restorative Justice: Justice Programs for Inmates, Parolees
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, January 28). Death Penalty: Why the Death Penalty Should be Abolished. https://ivypanda.com/essays/death-penalty-why-the-death-penalty-should-be-abolished/

"Death Penalty: Why the Death Penalty Should be Abolished." IvyPanda , 28 Jan. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/death-penalty-why-the-death-penalty-should-be-abolished/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Death Penalty: Why the Death Penalty Should be Abolished'. 28 January.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Death Penalty: Why the Death Penalty Should be Abolished." January 28, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/death-penalty-why-the-death-penalty-should-be-abolished/.

1. IvyPanda . "Death Penalty: Why the Death Penalty Should be Abolished." January 28, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/death-penalty-why-the-death-penalty-should-be-abolished/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Death Penalty: Why the Death Penalty Should be Abolished." January 28, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/death-penalty-why-the-death-penalty-should-be-abolished/.

After California, the real reason we should end the death penalty—for good.

In the past two years, I have been reminded many times of why I am happy to call myself a Californian. Forget for a moment the droughts and fires, the floods and mudslides, the overpriced housing and overvalued trappings. We Californians are fighting the good fight. Among other matters, we have stood up for the rule of law, the rights of immigrants and the survival of the planet. Now our new governor has imposed a moratorium on the application of capital punishment, and I feel prouder than ever to live in the Golden State.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s executive order provides a reprieve for the 737 inmates who are currently housed on California’s death row in San Quentin State Prison. The order does not release any prisoners or alter any sentences they are serving. It repeals the state’s lethal injection protocol and directs that the death chamber at San Quentin be closed immediately. The governor is not one to cloud his words with political ambiguity: “My ultimate goal is to end the death penalty in California,” he said at a news conference in Sacramento.

Of course, not all Californians back the governor’s decision. The blue fabric of our state contains swaths of red, one of which I inhabit. Among other outraged supporters of the death penalty, Tom Lackey, the state assembly member who represents my neighborhood, decried the governor’s order. “Death row inmates are not ordinary criminals,” Mr. Lackey said . “They are kidnappers. They are cop killers. They are rapists who murdered their victims. These are the monsters Gov. Newsom is protecting.”

Human beings are created in the image and likeness of God; hence it is a self-evident truth that we are not monsters.

His statement brings up one big reason I am against the death penalty: Human beings are not monsters.

Human beings are created in the image and likeness of God; hence it is a self-evident truth that we are not monsters. History proves that when we label others as less than human , as monkeys or cockroaches or monsters, we then feel justified in persecuting in unspeakable ways those we have dehumanized. Using the kind of language that intentionally strips the essential humanity from other humans allows us to walk a cruel path in good conscience. When a government sanctions the subhuman designation of other people, whole groups are subjected to state-sponsored segregation, maltreatment, exile, execution or even genocide.

It is true that human beings do terrible things to one another. Some of us kidnap and murder and rape. Our penal systems struggle to apply the optimal combination of incarceration and rehabilitation for people who break the law, especially in the most shocking instances of crime. But we err when we forget that every human being is a beloved child of God. Every living person, no matter how damaged or depraved or mentally ill, holds within himself or herself the spark of the innate dignity of life.

The most compelling reason not to execute the convicted is an existential one: We humans are not God.

There are many valid arguments against capital punishment that are practical: It is extraordinarily costly ; it has not been shown to be an effective deterrent to future crime; it is applied unequally and unjustly along economic and racial lines; it is not necessary to secure public safety; it is irreversible in the event of exonerating evidence . All of these points are well documented.

The most compelling reason not to execute the convicted, however, is an existential one: We humans are not God. Killing another human being as punishment or deterrent is playing God. It is taking away another person’s possibility of redemption. We righteous ones do not get to decide who does not deserve or who forfeits the divine spark of life.

Having worked closely with prison inmates , I know I personify the bleeding heart that Mr. Lackey no doubt thinks is misguided. I cop to the bleeding, but I also credit that work with teaching me to be slow to judge and quicker to witness. It taught me that I am no more or less worthy of God’s lavish mercy than anyone else and that no one is irredeemable. Better a bleeding heart than a hardened heart.

Californians will continue to argue with each other as we take positions for and against Governor Newsom’s moratorium. I imagine the issue will again come before us voters to decide whether we will abolish the death penalty permanently. For today, however, I am heartened that the Golden State is living up to the Golden Rule. California is known for birthing many movements that go nationwide—some wacky and weird, some positive and progressive. We may not have started this trend, but I sure hope we have made it cool and enlightened for the rest of the country to eliminate the death penalty. Our shared humanity requires no less.

Valerie Schultz is a freelance writer, a columnist for The Bakersfield Californian and the author of Closer: Musings on Intimacy, Marriage, and God. She and her husband Randy have four daughters.

I agree. I wish we felt the same way about dropping bombs on civilians !

California is a strange place. They want to save the lives of the guilty, but kill the innocents.

These condemned criminals have been judge WORTHY of death by California citizens in their trial. Ordinary citizens in a jury have been given the chance to say, no, this criminal does not deserve to die; but faced with the horror of their crimes, the criminal has been deemed death worthy. We have voted on this issue, and the PEOPLE’s will is the death penalty. The governor supports paying for the murdering of innocent children in the womb, yet plays like he is some sort of honorable person in acting like a dictator and denying the people’s will. One day, it will explode in your faces as the masses rebel. But then, ignorant people keep reliving history.....

Good for the governor of California!

So, are you flying down to New Zealand to give the perp a big hug? Probably.

And to submit this as a Democrat/ Republican issue shows the author's, well, loving hatred and arrogance. So what else is new. Personally, I'm sick of people who demean other groups of people due to the perceived righteous of their position. Kinda makes you want to stop going to Church sometimes.

I agree that it's good to work for the survival of our planet. I occasionally contribute to the Catholic Climate Covenant, a pro-life environmental group. I also certainly am glad that California stands up for immigrants. I live in a nursing home, and many of the staff are immigrants from African nations. I was very much saddened when I learned recently that Elizabeth, who is an immigrant from Kenya with two sons still in her homeland, had quit. She was my favorite nurse, very caring and accomodating to the personal needs of we residents. Years ago, I worked as a caregiver in a group home with disabled men. Several of my co-workers were immigrants from Liberia. They had fled from a brutal civil war seeking a better life in our nation. I commend you for working in a,prison. Two of my friends (one is really merely an acquaintaince) in our nursing home were prisioners, and although they at times can be a,little "rough around the edges," they certainly aren't "monsters." I agree that "every human being is a beloved child of God." I'm a retired Special Education teacher who instructed children who were brain damaged. Despite the challenges that they faced (and frankly caused those of us who cared for them to face) I don't regret caring for them, even their most personal needs. I still send Birthday and Christmas cards to one of my former students who is now 40. Back to my admittedly limited experience with prisoners. For years I've been a pen pal with a man serving life in prison for a serious crime. From our correspondence, I'm convinced that my friehd, a devout Jehovah's Witness, has reformed his life. I certainly don't want anyone to "play God" and kill by capital punishment anyone convicted of any crime, no matter how heinous. (I frankly am not sure why my pen pal/friend is serving a life sentence, but ultimately it doesn't matter to me). I commend Governor Newsom for placing a moratorium on the death penalty. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, a 2011 study estimated that California had spent more than $4 billion on death penalty trials, appeals, and incarcerations. If the death penalty was,abolished, it was estimated that $170 million would he saved by the state each year. Surely, that money saved could be better spent on rehabilitation programs for criminals, and counseling for crime victims. Governor Newsom noted that 164 wrongly convicted prisoners had been exonerated from our nation's death rows since 1973. It is very disturbing that any innocent human being could be killed. However, it must be noted that Governor Newsom staunchly favors the violence of legal abortion for any reason (the present law due to the 1973 Supreme Court decisions Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton). How tragic that Newsom doesn't see the deliberate killing of almost 1_million innocent unborn human beings each year as a terrible injustice and violation of the right to life.

How this can even be a debate within a Catholic community is sad. Read the Catechism.

Most popular

Your source for jobs, books, retreats, and much more.

The latest from america

Faculty Scholarship

‌the end of the death penalty.

‌‘Unintended consequences’ and the legacy of Furman v. Georgia

More than 50 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Furman v. Georgia that the death penalty was an unconstitutional violation of the Eighth Amendment ban against cruel and unusual punishment. With that, 629 people on death row nationwide had their capital sentences commuted, and the death penalty disappeared overnight.

“Furman was neither a tremendous success nor a terrible failure but a complicated story of unintended consequences and echoes of Furman continue to this day to have tremendous impact.” Carol Steiker

But Furman didn’t abolish capital punishment for very long. Four years later, Gregg v. Georgia and several companion cases made clear that governments could impose capital punishment under certain conditions. Those decisions were a response to the backlash sparked by Furman , which appeared to revive support for a practice that had been in sharp decline for years. Today, 27 states in the U.S., as well as the federal government, retain the death penalty, and as of April 2022, one source reported that there were 2,414 people on death row across the country. Despite what many would have predicted in 1972, when the Furman decision suggested the U.S. would become an international leader in eliminating the death penalty, today it’s the only Western democracy that still imposes it.

Still, while the death penalty persists in the U.S., it’s not exactly thriving. Indeed, it’s once again “withering” across the country, says Carol S. Steiker ’86 , the Henry J. Friendly Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, who has taught Capital Punishment in America at the school since 1993. Though Furman (and its subsequent overruling) helped fuel the death penalty’s revival, it also set in motion a long series of events that may ultimately eliminate capital punishment in the United States, Steiker says.

“ Furman was neither a tremendous success nor a terrible failure but a complicated story of unintended consequences and echoes of Furman continue to this day to have tremendous impact,” says Steiker, who is co-author, with her brother, Jordan Steiker ’88, of “Courting Death: The Supreme Court and Capital Punishment” (Harvard University Press, 2016) and co-editor, also with him, of “Comparative Capital Punishment” (Edward Elgar, 2019).

“ Furman was a remarkable intervention,” says Jordan Steiker, a professor at the law school at the University of Texas at Austin and co-director of its Capital Punishment Center. “Even though it was quite short-lived in suspending the death penalty in the U.S., it completely changed its course because it essentially inspired or required states to rethink how they were doing capital punishment. And ultimately, the practice of the death penalty changed substantially over time.”

Given the greatly heightened public attention to the power of the Supreme Court today, the 50th anniversary of Furman is an opportunity to reexamine not just the history of the death penalty but the appropriate role of the Court in American life, Carol Steiker and others believe.

“Right now a lot of people are wondering how much of a role we want the courts to play in deciding what rights are guaranteed by the Constitution, and Furman v. Georgia is a unique example of when the Court struck down a policy that was widely prevalent throughout the states for violating the Constitution,” says Gene Young Chang ’24, who has been studying the death penalty with Steiker since he was a freshman in her Harvard College course The American Death Penalty: Morality, Law, and Politics. Furman , he says, “teaches us things about the role of the courts in a democratic society, the scope of constitutional rights, and the proper method for defining those rights.”

Categorical abolition of the death penalty across the nation is unlikely without another Furman v. Georgia , “what you might call Furman II, which is obviously not forthcoming from this Court or anytime in the foreseeable future,” Carol Steiker says. Instead, the future of the death penalty, she says, is being played out at the local level, in “a kind of guerrilla war going on county by county, state by state, with the election of progressive prosecutors who do not seek the death penalty, state legislative activity, and state constitutional litigation under state constitutions.”

The final death knell for capital punishment will likely depend on a very different Supreme Court from the one we have today, she says. “But at that point,” given other trends in the country, “it may be more like a coup de grâce rather than what it was at the time of Furman .”

History of a ‘remarkable intervention’

In the 1960s, due to a campaign by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund to challenge its constitutionality in cases across the country, capital punishment was in decline. Indeed, no one was executed in the five years before Furman , as states waited to see what the high court would rule. In 1971, the Supreme Court rejected a due process challenge to capital punishment. But Furman , argued a year later, relied on the Eighth Amendment: The LDF team argued that the arbitrary application of capital punishment — jurors, often with no guidance, had complete discretion on when to impose it — was a cruel and unusual punishment.

”The Supreme Court intervention [in Furman] not only didn’t kill the death penalty but actually made it stronger when it was reinstated.” Carol Steiker

The Supreme Court agreed, 5-4, although the justices issued nine separate opinions, which was very unusual, as Carol Steiker notes. Justice Thurgood Marshall (for whom both Steikers later clerked) and Justice William J. Brennan Jr. LL.B. ’31 maintained that the death penalty was unconstitutional per se. Justice William O. Douglas was troubled by its discriminatory application, given overwhelming evidence that it was more often imposed on Black defendants, the poor, and the politically unpopular. Justices Potter Stewart and Byron White were troubled by its arbitrary application under state statutes, with Justice Stewart famously writing, “These death sentences are cruel and unusual in the same way that being struck by lightning is cruel and unusual.” He concluded that the Constitution could not “permit this unique penalty to be so wantonly and so freakishly imposed.”

But abolitionists’ hopes didn’t last long. Soon after Furman, 35 states rewrote their laws to try to comply with the Court’s ruling. In 1976, in a group of consolidated cases known as Gregg v. Georgia , the Supreme Court held that the death penalty was not per se unconstitutional. It ruled the punishment could be revived if state laws provided an objective process for deciding when to apply it and gave sufficient discretion to juries to determine whether it was appropriate. However, mandatory death penalties were unconstitutional, it held, even though some states believed that mandatory penalties were necessary to eliminate sentencing discretion.

Furman created an enormous backlash, the Steikers explain, so that capital punishment — which was becoming less and less popular in public opinion — resurged. It became “more of a wedge issue, part of the tough-on-crime political strategy of [President Richard] Nixon, and political entrepreneurs exploited the resentment at the Supreme Court’s intervention in the death penalty,” says Jordan Steiker, who has frequently taught at Harvard Law School, most recently in 2018 as the Touroff-Glueck Visiting Professor of Law and Psychiatry. “In the short term, the death penalty became more vigorous, there were more death sentences, and by the 1990s, there were many more executions than we were having pre- Furman .”

At least initially, then, “the Supreme Court intervention [in Furman ] not only didn’t kill the death penalty but actually made it stronger when it was reinstated,” says Carol Steiker, something she sees as an “unintended and unforeseen consequence” of the case.

Birth of the capital defense bar

But there was another unforeseen consequence of Furman , one that Jordan Steiker describes as “probably more important and long-lasting” — the birth of a large and highly skilled capital defense bar.

With the resurrection of the death penalty, new, sophisticated institutions were created and staffed by passionate and skilled anti-capital lawyers: state offices for capital representation at the trial, appellate, and post-conviction levels; capital habeas corpus units within state and federal public defenders’ offices; and numerous non-governmental nonprofits, such as Bryan Stevenson ’85’s Equal Justice Initiative. Today, “we have a whole legion of much more focused and talented advocates working on behalf of people facing capital charges or sentenced to death,” says Jordan Steiker.

Capital litigation has become far more complex, and the costs have soared. This has helped persuade many local prosecutors to avoid seeking the death penalty.

With these developments, as well as the Supreme Court’s imposition of special procedural requirements for cases involving the death penalty, capital litigation has become far more complex, and the costs have soared. “The constitutional decisions post- Furman have not imposed the most rigorous scrutiny of capital practices,” says Jordan Steiker, “but they have produced institutional actors who have made the death penalty much less attractive as a practical matter because to do it reasonably well is just exorbitantly expensive.” This has helped persuade many local prosecutors to avoid seeking the death penalty and has led to an “extraordinary decline in capital proceedings,” he says.

The current Supreme Court has signaled greater willingness to affirm capital sentences than in the recent past, says Jordan Steiker, and some jurisdictions have embraced that signal. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals had scheduled nearly one execution a month between 2022 and 2024 (although at the request of the new attorney general, the pace has now been slowed to no more than one every 60 days). In Texas, on the other hand, two death sentences were imposed in 2022, which contrasts starkly with the 1990s, when Texas juries were handing out more than 40 a year, Jordan Steiker says. “The practice on the ground is withering in part because of the institutions built in response to Furman ,” he says.

Local prosecutors and state courts take over

Other factors besides cost have decreased the public’s appetite for the death penalty, including media attention to, and public awareness of, the number of innocent people sentenced to death. Since 1973, at least 190 people who were wrongly convicted and sentenced to death have been exonerated, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. For that and other reasons, including declining crime rates, there has been a dramatic decline in public support for the death penalty over the past 20 years. Though the 2021 Gallup poll found that 54% of respondents continued to support it, that is the lowest number in the annual poll since 1972.

Erica Medley LL.M. ’22 was a prosecutor in the U.S. Air Force before matriculating at HLS. When she was a schoolgirl, in Oregon, two of her friends were raped and murdered by a neighbor, Ward Weaver III. When Weaver received two life sentences, “It made no sense,” Medley recalls. “I thought he should have gotten the death penalty.” When Medley enrolled in Carol Steiker’s class on capital punishment in fall 2021, she was among the very few students who supported the death penalty, according to an informal online class poll.

But before the first class, Medley did a complete reversal sparked by reading the course materials. “I was so overwhelmed reading everything that I did a 180. It was that fast,” says Medley, who was persuaded by the evidence of the racially disparate impact of the death penalty, its exorbitant expense compared with that of prison sentences, the number of people on death row who turn out to be innocent, and the fact that no other peer nations still impose the penalty.

The shifting demographics of urban counties are also having an effect on the use of the death penalty across the country since such counties are often the only places that can afford to prosecute many capital cases, says Jordan Steiker. As these counties become less politically conservative, they are increasingly controlled by “less zealous prosecutors,” he says. Harris County, Texas, which includes Houston, and Dallas County were “longstanding conservative-controlled political entities, and now they’re not. Now many prosecutors run not on the death penalty but away from the death penalty. That’s a very significant shift.”

“We now have this odd dynamic, where courts, especially the Supreme Court, are pushing in the direction of deregulating, but there’s not much left in terms of capital punishment to deregulate.” Jordan Steiker

And, just as the resurgence of the death penalty in the 1980s and ’90s paralleled public reaction to a crime surge, a drop in death penalty cases mirrors what has generally been a long-term decline in the homicide rate, as well as public concerns about mass incarceration and racial inequities in the criminal justice system, says Carol Steiker, faculty sponsor of the Capital Punishment Clinic, through which Harvard Law students are placed in externships at capital defense organizations around the country.

And the past 16 years have seen a growing legislative trend toward abolishing the death penalty. In 2007, 38 states retained it; today, there are only 27. In 2021, Virginia, which has executed more people than any other state, became the first Southern state to abolish capital punishment. It was preceded by legislative repeals in Colorado, New Jersey, Illinois, and Connecticut, among other states. In Washington state, the Supreme Court found the death penalty unconstitutional under the state constitution because it was used in an arbitrary and racially biased manner.

“We now have this odd dynamic, where courts, especially the Supreme Court, are pushing in the direction of deregulating, but there’s not much left in terms of capital punishment to deregulate,” says Jordan Steiker.

“I think in the short term we’ll end up having more executions because of the Supreme Court’s reluctance to impede them, even though executions have been in as much of a decline as death sentences,” he adds. But with fewer capital sentences taking place, “death row has been shrinking considerably, and at some point we’ll have a death row that seems inconsequential as part of our criminal justice system.”

Furman’s ultimate impact?

In the end, then, was Furman a victory for those who brought the case? “That’s a good question,” says Jordan Steiker. “There’s one point of view that I’m sympathetic to, that says that Furman revived a practice that was dying on the ground, and had there been no intervention, we might not have had a revival and then a second decline.”

On the other hand, when Michael Meltsner, one of the lawyers on the LDF team who brought Furman , speaks to Carol Steiker’s capital punishment class each year, he emphasizes that there were 629 people on death row in 1972 whose lives were saved by Furman.

“So in that sense, it was a tremendous victory,” says Carol Steiker. “It was a reset moment.”

Modal Gallery

Gallery block modal gallery.

The Case Against the Death Penalty

The American Civil Liberties Union believes the death penalty inherently violates the constitutional ban against cruel and unusual punishment and the guarantees of due process of law and of equal protection under the law. Furthermore, we believe that the state should not give itself the right to kill human beings – especially when it kills with premeditation and ceremony, in the name of the law or in the name of its people, and when it does so in an arbitrary and discriminatory fashion.

Capital punishment is an intolerable denial of civil liberties and is inconsistent with the fundamental values of our democratic system. The death penalty is uncivilized in theory and unfair and inequitable in practice. Through litigation, legislation, and advocacy against this barbaric and brutal institution, we strive to prevent executions and seek the abolition of capital punishment.

The ACLU’s opposition to capital punishment incorporates the following fundamental concerns:

The death penalty system in the US is applied in an unfair and unjust manner against people, largely dependent on how much money they have, the skill of their attorneys, race of the victim and where the crime took place . People of color are far more likely to be executed than white people, especially if thevictim is white

The death penalty is a waste of taxpayer funds and has no public safety benefit. The vast majority of law enforcement professionals surveyed agree that capital punishment does not deter violent crime; a survey of police chiefs nationwide found they rank the death penalty lowest among ways to reduce violent crime. They ranked increasing the number of police officers, reducing drug abuse, and creating a better economy with more jobs higher than the death penalty as the best ways to reduce violence. The FBI has found the states with the death penalty have the highest murder rates.

Innocent people are too often sentenced to death. Since 1973, over 156 people have been released from death rows in 26 states because of innocence. Nationally, at least one person is exonerated for every 10 that are executed.

INTRODUCTION TO THE “MODERN ERA” OF THE DEATH PENALTY IN THE UNITED STATES

In 1972, the Supreme Court declared that under then-existing laws “the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty… constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.” ( Furman v. Georgia , 408 U.S. 238). The Court, concentrating its objections on the manner in which death penalty laws had been applied, found the result so “harsh, freakish, and arbitrary” as to be constitutionally unacceptable. Making the nationwide impact of its decision unmistakable, the Court summarily reversed death sentences in the many cases then before it, which involved a wide range of state statutes, crimes and factual situations.

But within four years after the Furman decision, several hundred persons had been sentenced to death under new state capital punishment statutes written to provide guidance to juries in sentencing. These statutes require a two-stage trial procedure, in which the jury first determines guilt or innocence and then chooses imprisonment or death in the light of aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

In 1976, the Supreme Court moved away from abolition, holding that “the punishment of death does not invariably violate the Constitution.” The Court ruled that the new death penalty statutes contained “objective standards to guide, regularize, and make rationally reviewable the process for imposing the sentence of death.” ( Gregg v. Georgia , 428 U.S. 153). Subsequently 38 state legislatures and the Federal government enacted death penalty statutes patterned after those the Court upheld in Gregg. Congress also enacted and expanded federal death penalty statutes for peacetime espionage by military personnel and for a vast range of categories of murder.

Executions resumed in 1977. In 2002, the Supreme Court held executions of mentally retarded criminals are “cruel and unusual punishments” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. Since then, states have developed a range of processes to ensure that mentally retarded individuals are not executed. Many have elected to hold proceedings prior to the merits trial, many with juries, to determine whether an accused is mentally retarded. In 2005, the Supreme Court held that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution forbid imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed, resulting in commutation of death sentences to life for dozens of individuals across the country. As of August 2012, over 3,200 men and women are under a death sentence and more than 1,300 men, women and children (at the time of the crime) have been executed since 1976 .

ACLU OBJECTIONS TO THE DEATH PENALTY

Despite the Supreme Court’s 1976 ruling in Gregg v. Georgia , et al, the ACLU continues to oppose capital punishment on moral, practical, and constitutional grounds:

Capital punishment is cruel and unusual . It is cruel because it is a relic of the earliest days of penology, when slavery, branding, and other corporal punishments were commonplace. Like those barbaric practices, executions have no place in a civilized society. It is unusual because only the United States of all the western industrialized nations engages in this punishment. It is also unusual because only a random sampling of convicted murderers in the United States receive a sentence of death.

Capital punishment denies due process of law. Its imposition is often arbitrary, and always irrevocable – forever depriving an individual of the opportunity to benefit from new evidence or new laws that might warrant the reversal of a conviction, or the setting aside of a death sentence.

The death penalty violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection . It is applied randomly – and discriminatorily. It is imposed disproportionately upon those whose victims are white, offenders who are people of color, and on those who are poor and uneducated and concentrated in certain geographic regions of the country.

The death penalty is not a viable form of crime control. When police chiefs were asked to rank the factors that, in their judgment, reduce the rate of violent crime, they mentioned curbing drug use and putting more officers on the street, longer sentences and gun control. They ranked the death penalty as least effective . Politicians who preach the desirability of executions as a method of crime control deceive the public and mask their own failure to identify and confront the true causes of crime.

Capital punishment wastes limited resources . It squanders the time and energy of courts, prosecuting attorneys, defense counsel, juries, and courtroom and law enforcement personnel. It unduly burdens the criminal justice system, and it is thus counterproductive as an instrument for society’s control of violent crime. Limited funds that could be used to prevent and solve crime (and provide education and jobs) are spent on capital punishment.

Opposing the death penalty does not indicate a lack of sympathy for murder victims . On the contrary, murder demonstrates a lack of respect for human life. Because life is precious and death irrevocable, murder is abhorrent, and a policy of state-authorized killings is immoral. It epitomizes the tragic inefficacy and brutality of violence, rather than reason, as the solution to difficult social problems. Many murder victims do not support state-sponsored violence to avenge the death of their loved one. Sadly, these victims have often been marginalized by politicians and prosecutors, who would rather publicize the opinions of pro-death penalty family members.

Changes in death sentencing have proved to be largely cosmetic. The defects in death-penalty laws, conceded by the Supreme Court in the early 1970s, have not been appreciably altered by the shift from unrestrained discretion to “guided discretion.” Such so-called “reforms” in death sentencing merely mask the impermissible randomness of a process that results in an execution.

A society that respects life does not deliberately kill human beings . An execution is a violent public spectacle of official homicide, and one that endorses killing to solve social problems – the worst possible example to set for the citizenry, and especially children. Governments worldwide have often attempted to justify their lethal fury by extolling the purported benefits that such killing would bring to the rest of society. The benefits of capital punishment are illusory, but the bloodshed and the resulting destruction of community decency are real.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IS NOT A DETERRENT TO CAPITAL CRIMES

Deterrence is a function not only of a punishment’s severity, but also of its certainty and frequency. The argument most often cited in support of capital punishment is that the threat of execution influences criminal behavior more effectively than imprisonment does. As plausible as this claim may sound, in actuality the death penalty fails as a deterrent for several reasons.

A punishment can be an effective deterrent only if it is consistently and promptly employed. Capital punishment cannot be administered to meet these conditions .

The proportion of first-degree murderers who are sentenced to death is small, and of this group, an even smaller proportion of people are executed. Although death sentences in the mid-1990s increased to about 300 per year , this is still only about one percent of all homicides known to the police . Of all those convicted on a charge of criminal homicide, only 3 percent – about 1 in 33 – are eventually sentenced to death. Between 2001-2009, the average number of death sentences per year dropped to 137 , reducing the percentage even more. This tiny fraction of convicted murderers do not represent the “worst of the worst”.

Mandatory death sentencing is unconstitutional. The possibility of increasing the number of convicted murderers sentenced to death and executed by enacting mandatory death penalty laws was ruled unconstitutional in 1976 ( Woodson v. North Carolina , 428 U.S. 280).

A considerable time between the imposition of the death sentence and the actual execution is unavoidable, given the procedural safeguards required by the courts in capital cases. Starting with selecting the trial jury, murder trials take far longer when the ultimate penalty is involved. Furthermore, post-conviction appeals in death-penalty cases are far more frequent than in other cases. These factors increase the time and cost of administering criminal justice.

We can reduce delay and costs only by abandoning the procedural safeguards and constitutional rights of suspects, defendants, and convicts – with the attendant high risk of convicting the wrong person and executing the innocent. This is not a realistic prospect: our legal system will never reverse itself to deny defendants the right to counsel, or the right to an appeal.

Persons who commit murder and other crimes of personal violence often do not premeditate their crimes.

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. Many capital crimes are committed by the badly emotionally-damaged or mentally ill. In such cases, violence is inflicted by persons unable to appreciate the consequences to themselves as well as to others.

Even 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. Furthermore, the death penalty is a futile threat for political terrorists, like Timothy McVeigh, because they usually act in the name of an ideology that honors its martyrs.

Capital punishment doesn’t solve our society’s crime problem. Threatening capital punishment leaves the underlying causes of crime unaddressed, and ignores the many political and diplomatic sanctions (such as treaties against asylum for international terrorists) that could appreciably lower the incidence of terrorism.

Capital punishment has been a useless weapon in the so-called “war on drugs.” The attempt to reduce murders in the drug trade by threat of severe punishment ignores the fact that anyone trafficking in illegal drugs is already risking his life in violent competition with other dealers. It is irrational to think that the death penalty – a remote threat at best – will avert murders committed in drug turf wars or by street-level dealers.

If, however, severe punishment can deter crime, then permanent 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. Use of the death penalty in a given state may actually increase the subsequent rate of criminal homicide. Why? Perhaps because “a return to the exercise of the death penalty weakens socially based inhibitions against the use of lethal force to settle disputes…. “

In adjacent states – one with the death penalty and the other without it – the state that practices the death penalty does not always show a consistently lower rate of criminal homicide. For example, between l990 and l994, the homicide rates in Wisconsin and Iowa (non-death-penalty states) were half the rates of their neighbor, Illinois – which restored the death penalty in l973, and by 1994 had sentenced 223 persons to death and carried out two executions . Between 2000-2010, the murder rate in states with capital punishment was 25-46% higher than states without the death penalty.

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 1976 and 1989, for example, lethal assaults against police were not significantly more or less frequent in abolitionist states than in death-penalty states. Capital punishment did not appear to provide officers added protection during that time frame. In fact, the three leading states in law enforcement homicide in 1996 were also very active death penalty states : California (highest death row population), Texas (most executions since 1976), and Florida (third highest in executions and death row population). The South, which accounts for more than 80% of the country’s executions, also has the highest murder rate of any region in the country. If anything, the death penalty incited violence rather than curbed it.

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 of those inmates (84%) were killed in death penalty jurisdictions. During the same period, about 2% of all inmate assaults on prison staff were committed 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.” Furthermore, multiple studies have shown that prisoners sentenced to life without parole have equivalent rates of prison violence as compared to other inmates.

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

Furthermore, there are documented cases in which the death penalty actually incited the capital crimes it was supposed to deter. These include instances of the so-called suicide-by-execution syndrome – persons who wanted to die but feared taking their own lives, and committed murder so that the state would kill them. For example, in 1996, Daniel Colwell , who suffered from mental illness, claimed that he killed a randomly-selected couple in a Georgia parking lot so that the state would kill him – he was sentenced to death and ultimately took his own life while on death row.

Although inflicting the death penalty guarantees that the condemned person will commit no further crimes, it does not have a demonstrable deterrent effect on other individuals. Further, it is a high price to pay when studies show that few convicted murderers commit further crimes of violence. Researchers examined the prison and post-release records of 533 prisoners on death row in 1972 whose sentences were reduced to incarceration for life by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Furman. This research showed that seven had committed another murder. But the same study showed that in four other cases, an innocent man had been sentenced to death. (Marquart and Sorensen, in Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 1989)

Recidivism among murderers does occasionally happen, but it occurs less frequently than most people believe; the media rarely distinguish between a convicted offender who murders while on parole, and a paroled murderer who murders again. Government data show that about one in 12 death row prisoners had a prior homicide conviction . But as there is no way to predict reliably which convicted murderers will try to kill again, the only way to prevent all such recidivism is to execute every convicted murderer – a policy no one seriously advocates. Equally effective but far less inhumane is a policy of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IS UNFAIR

Constitutional due process and elementary justice both require that the judicial functions of trial and sentencing be conducted with fundamental fairness, especially where the irreversible sanction of the death penalty is involved. In murder cases (since 1930, 88 percent of all executions have been for this crime), there has been substantial evidence to show that courts have sentenced some persons to prison while putting others to death in a manner that has been arbitrary, racially biased, and unfair.

Racial Bias in Death Sentencing

Racial discrimination was one of the grounds on which the Supreme Court ruled the death penalty unconstitutional in Furman . Half a century ago, in his classic American Dilemma (1944), Gunnar Myrdal reported that “the South makes the widest application of the death penalty, and Negro criminals come in for much more than their share of the executions.” A study of the death penalty in Texas shows that the current capital punishment system is an outgrowth of the racist “legacy of slavery.” Between 1930 and the end of 1996, 4,220 prisoners were executed in the United States; more than half (53%) were black .

Our nation’s death rows have always held a disproportionately large population of African Americans, relative to their percentage of the total population. Comparing black and white offenders over the past century, the former were often executed for what were considered less-than-capital offenses for whites, such as rape and burglary. (Between 1930 and 1976, 455 men were executed for rape, of whom 405 – 90 percent – were black.) A higher percentage of the blacks who were executed were juveniles; and the rate of execution without having one’s conviction reviewed by any higher court was higher for blacks. (Bowers, Legal Homicide 1984; Streib, Death Penalty for Juveniles 1987)

In recent years, it has been argued that such flagrant racial discrimination is a thing of the past. However, since the revival of the death penalty in the mid-1970s, about half of those on death row at any given time have been black . More striking is the racial comparison of victims . Although approximately 49% of all homicide victims are white, 77% of capital homicide cases since 1976 have involved a white victim.

Between 1976 and 2005 , 86% of white victims were killed by whites (14% by other races) while 94% of black victims were killed by blacks (6% by other races). Blacks and whites are murder victims in almost equal numbers of crimes – which is a very high percentage given that the general US population is 13% black. African-Americans are six times as likely as white Americans to die at the hands of a murderer, and roughly seven times as likely to murder someone. Young black men are fifteen times as likely to be murdered as young white men.

So given this information, when those under death sentence are examined more closely, it turns out that race is a decisive factor after all.

Further, studies like that commissioned by the Governor of Maryland found that “black offenders who kill white victims are at greater risk of a death sentence than others, primarily because they are substantially more likely to be charged by the state’s attorney with a capital offense.”

The classic statistical study of racial discrimination in capital cases in Georgia presented in the McCleskey case showed that “the average odds of receiving a death sentence among all indicted cases were 4.3 times higher in cases with white victims.” (David C. Baldus et al., Equal Justice and the Death Penalty 1990) In 1987 these data were placed before the Supreme Court in McCleskey v. Kemp and while the Court did not dispute the statistical evidence, it held that evidence of an overall pattern of racial bias was not sufficient. Mr. McCleskey would have to prove racial bias in his own case – a virtually impossible task. The Court also held that the evidence failed to show that there was “a constitutionally significant risk of racial bias….” (481 U.S. 279) Although the Supreme Court declared that the remedy sought by the plaintiff was “best presented to the legislative bodies,” subsequent efforts to persuade Congress to remedy the problem by enacting the Racial Justice Act were not successful. (Don Edwards & John Conyers, Jr., The Racial Justice Act – A Simple Matter of Justice, in University of Dayton Law Review 1995)

In 1990, the U.S. General Accounting Office reported to the Congress the results of its review of empirical studies on racism and the death penalty. The GAO concluded : “Our synthesis of the 28 studies shows a pattern of evidence indicating racial disparities in the charging, sentencing, and imposition of the death penalty after the Furman decision” and that “race of victim influence was found at all stages of the criminal justice system process…”

Texas was prepared to execute Duane Buck on September 15, 2011. Mr. Buck was condemned to death by a jury that had been told by an expert psychologist that he was more likely to be dangerous because he was African American. The Supreme Court stayed the case, but Mr. Buck has not yet received the new sentencing hearing justice requires.

These results cannot be explained away by relevant non-racial factors, such as prior criminal record or type of crime, as these were factored for in the Baldus and GAO studies referred to above. They lead to a very unsavory conclusion: In the trial courts of this nation, even at the present time, the killing of a white person is treated much more severely than the killing of a black person . Of the 313 persons executed between January 1977 and the end of 1995, 36 had been convicted of killing a black person while 249 (80%) had killed a white person. Of the 178 white defendants executed, only three had been convicted of murdering people of color . Our criminal justice system essentially reserves the death penalty for murderers (regardless of their race) who kill white victims.

Another recent Louisiana study found that defendants with white victims were 97% more likely to receive death sentences than defendants with black victims. [1]

Both gender and socio-economic class also determine who receives a death sentence and who is executed. Women account for only two percent of all people sentenced to death , even though females commit about 11 percent of all criminal homicides. Many of the women under death sentence were guilty of killing men who had victimized them with years of violent abuse . Since 1900, only 51 women have been executed in the United States (15 of them black).

Discrimination against the poor (and in our society, racial minorities are disproportionately poor) is also well established. It is a prominent factor in the availability of counsel.

Fairness in capital cases requires, above all, competent counsel for the defendant. Yet “approximately 90 percent of those on death row could not afford to hire a lawyer when they were tried.”) Common characteristics of death-row defendants are poverty, the lack of firm social roots in the community, and inadequate legal representation at trial or on appeal. As Justice William O. Douglas noted in Furman , “One searches our chronicles in vain for the execution of any member of the affluent strata in this society”(408 US 238).

Failure of Safeguards

The demonstrated inequities in the actual administration of capital punishment should tip the balance against it in the judgment of fair-minded and impartial observers. “Whatever else might be said for the use of death as a punishment, one lesson is clear from experience: this is a power that we cannot exercise fairly and without discrimination.”(Gross and Mauro, Death and Discrimination 1989)

Justice John Marshall Harlan, writing for the Court in Furman , noted “… the history of capital punishment for homicides … reveals continual efforts, uniformly unsuccessful, to identify before the fact those homicides for which the slayer should die…. Those who have come to grips with the hard task of actually attempting to draft means of channeling capital sentencing discretion have confirmed the lesson taught by history…. To identify before the fact those characteristics of criminal homicides and their perpetrators which call for the death penalty, and to express these characteristics in language which can be fairly understood and applied by the sentencing authority, appear to be tasks which are beyond present human ability.” (402 U.S. 183 (1971))

Yet in the Gregg decision, the majority of the Supreme Court abandoned the wisdom of Justice Harlan and ruled as though the new guided-discretion statutes could accomplish the impossible. The truth is that death statutes approved by the Court “do not effectively restrict the discretion of juries by any real standards, and they never will. No society is going to kill everybody who meets certain preset verbal requirements, put on the statute books without awareness of coverage of the infinity of special factors the real world can produce.”

Evidence obtained by the Capital Jury Project has shown that jurors in capital trials generally do not understand the judge’s instructions about the laws that govern the choice between imposing the death penalty and a life sentence. Even when they do comprehend, jurors often refuse to be guided by the law. “Juror comprehension of the law… is mediocre. The effect [of this relative lack of comprehension of the law]… is to reduce the likelihood that capital defendants will benefit from the safeguards against arbitrariness built into the… law.”

Even if the jury’s sentencing decision were strictly governed by the relevant legal criteria, there remains a vast reservoir of unfettered discretion: the prosecutor’s decision to prosecute for a capital or lesser crime, the court’s willingness to accept or reject a guilty plea, the jury’s decision to convict for second-degree murder or manslaughter rather than capital murder, the determination of the defendant’s sanity, and the governor’s final clemency decision, among others.

Discretion in the criminal justice system is unavoidable. The history of capital punishment in America clearly demonstrates the social desire to mitigate the harshness of the death penalty by narrowing the scope of its application. Whether or not explicitly authorized by statutes, sentencing discretion has been the main vehicle to this end. But when sentencing discretion is used – as it too often has been – to doom the poor, the friendless, the uneducated, racial minorities, and the despised, it becomes injustice.

Mindful of such facts, the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association (including 20 out of 24 former presidents of the ABA) called for a moratorium on all executions by a vote of 280 to 119 in February 1997 . The House judged the current system to be “a haphazard maze of unfair practices.”

In its 1996 survey of the death penalty in the United States, the International Commission of Jurists reinforced this point. Despite the efforts made over the past two decades since Gregg to protect the administration of the death penalty from abuses, the actual “constitutional errors committed in state courts have gravely undermined the legitimacy of the death penalty as a punishment for crime.” (International Commission of Jurists, Administration of the Death Penalty in the United States 1996)

In 2009, the American Law Institute (ALI), the leading independent organization in the U.S. producing scholarly work to clarify, modernize and improve the law, removed capital punishment from its Model Penal Code. The ALI, which created the modern legal framework for the death penalty in 1962, indicated that the punishment is so arbitrary, fraught with racial and economic disparities, and unable to assure quality legal representation for indigent capital defendants, that it can never be administered fairly.

Thoughtful citizens, who might possibly support the abstract notion of capital punishment, are obliged to condemn it in actual practice.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IS IRREVERSIBLE

Unlike any other criminal punishments, the death penalty is irrevocable. Speaking to the French Chamber of Deputies in 1830, years after having witnessed the excesses of the French Revolution, the Marquis de Lafayette said, “I shall ask for the abolition of the punishment of death until I have the infallibility of human judgment demonstrated to me.” Although some proponents of capital punishment would argue that its merits are worth the occasional execution of innocent people, most would hasten to insist that there is little likelihood of the innocent being executed.

Since 1900, in this country, there have been on the average more than four cases each year in which an entirely innocent person was convicted of murder. Scores of these individuals were sentenced to death. In many cases, a reprieve or commutation arrived just hours, or even minutes, before the scheduled execution. These erroneous convictions have occurred in virtually every jurisdiction from one end of the nation to the other. Nor have they declined in recent years, despite the new death penalty statutes approved by the Supreme Court.

Disturbingly, and increasingly, a large body of evidence from the modern era shows that innocent people are often convicted of crimes – including capital crimes – and that some have been executed.

In 2012, a new report in the Columbia Human Rights Law Review chronicled the horrifying case of Carlos DeLuna, a man executed in Texas in 1989 for a murder that it was “common knowledge” had been committed by another man. [2] DeLuna’s story demonstrates so many of the factors that can go wrong in a capital case: faulty eyewitness identification, prosecutorial misconduct, police misconduct, a botched crime scene, destroyed DNA evidence, a poor person represented by ineffective by an ineffective inexperienced defense attorney overmatched by a professional prosecutor, and insufficient oversight from the bench. [3] In its case against DeLuna, the State presented no blood or DNA evidence, no crime scene fingerprints, and no proof of hair or fibers from the victim having been found on the defendant. He was convicted largely based on eyewitness testimony made from the back of a police car in a dimly lit lot near the crime scene. Meanwhile, a violent criminal named Carlos Hernandez—a man who not only shared DeLuna’s name, but also looked like him—repeatedly boasted about how he had committed the murder and gotten away with it. [4] These disturbing facts about DeLuna’s case, brought to light more than two decades after his execution, refute the claim, made by some proponents of capital punishment, that the United States has never executed an innocent person. [5]

Consider this additional handful of cases of innocent people sentenced to die – some executed and some spared:

In 2011, the state of Georgia executed Troy Davis, a Black man who was almost certainly innocent of the murder of a white off-duty police officer. The circumstances of his execution raised an international outcry, for good reason. Davis was convicted based on eyewitness testimony, since there was no murder weapon or physical evidence presented by the prosecution. Seven of the nine eyewitnesses recanted or contradicted their trial testimony, many of them saying they were pressured or threatened by police at the time. Troy Davis came close to execution three previous times, because of the difficulty of getting any court to listen to new evidence casting doubt on his conviction. After passage of a federal law in 1996, petitioners are very limited in their ability to appeal death sentences, and courts routinely refuse to hear new testimony, even evidence of innocence. When Troy Davis finally did get a hearing on his evidence, the judge required “proof of innocence” – an impossibly high standard which he ruled that Mr. Davis did not meet. Despite the overwhelming call for clemency, supposed to be the “fail-safe” of the death penalty system, the Georgia Board of Pardons refused to commute the sentence to life and Mr. Davis was executed. Only one day after Troy Davis was executed, two men were freed by the special Innocence Commission of North Carolina after a decade apiece in prison. The two men had actually pled guilty to a crime they did not commit, because they were threatened with the death penalty.
In Texas in 2004, Cameron Todd Willingham was executed for the arson-murder of his three children. Independent investigations by a newspaper, a nonprofit organization using top experts in the field of fire science, and an independent expert hired by the State of Texas all found that accident, not arson was the cause of the fire. There simply was no reliable evidence that the children were murdered. Yet even with these reports in hand, the state of Texas executed Mr. Willingham. Earlier this year, the Texas Forensic Science Commission was poised to issue a report officially confirming these conclusions until Texas Governor Rick Perry replaced the Commission’s chair and some of its members. Cameron Todd Willingham, who claimed innocence all along, was executed for a crime he almost certainly did not commit. As an example of the arbitrariness of the death penalty, another man, Ernest Willis, also convicted of arson-murder on the same sort of flimsy and unscientific testimony, was freed from Texas death row six months after Willingham was executed.
In 1985, in Maryland, Kirk Bloodsworth was sentenced to death for rape and murder, despite the testimony of alibi witnesses. In 1986 his conviction was reversed on grounds of withheld evidence pointing to another suspect; he was retried, re-convicted, and sentenced to life in prison. In 1993, newly available DNA evidence proved he was not the rapist-killer, and he was released after the prosecution dismissed the case. A year later he was awarded $300,000 for wrongful punishment. Years later the DNA was matched to the real killer.
In Mississippi, in 1990, Sabrina Butler was sentenced to death for killing her baby boy. She claimed the child died after attempts at resuscitation failed. On technical grounds her conviction was reversed in 1992. At retrial, she was acquitted when a neighbor corroborated Butler’s explanation of the child’s cause of death and the physician who performed the autopsy admitted his work had not been thorough.
In 1990, Jesse Tafero was executed in Florida. He had been convicted in 1976 along with his wife, Sonia Jacobs, for murdering a state trooper. In 1981 Jacobs’ death sentence was reduced on appeal to life imprisonment, and 11 years later her conviction was vacated by a federal court. The evidence on which Tafero and Jacobs had been convicted and sentenced was identical; it consisted mainly of the perjured testimony of an ex-convict who turned state’s witness in order to avoid a death sentence. Had Tafero been alive in 1992, he no doubt would have been released along with Jacobs. Tafero’s execution went horribly wrong, and his head caught on fire during the electrocution.
In Alabama, Walter McMillian was convicted of murdering a white woman in 1988. Despite the jury’s recommendation of a life sentence, the judge sentenced him to death. The sole evidence leading the police to arrest McMillian was testimony of an ex-convict seeking favor with the prosecution. A dozen alibi witnesses (all African Americans, like McMillian) testified on McMillian’s behalf that they were together at a neighborhood gathering, to no avail. On appeal, after tireless efforts by his attorney Bryan Stevenson, McMillian’s conviction was reversed by the Alabama Court of Appeals. Stevenson uncovered prosecutorial suppression of exculpatory evidence and perjury by prosecution witnesses, and the new district attorney joined the defense in seeking dismissal of the charges.
In 1985, in Illinois, Rolando Cruz and Alejandro Hernandez were convicted of abduction, rape, and murder of a young girl and were sentenced to death. Shortly after, another man serving a life term in prison for similar crimes confessed that he alone was guilty; but his confession was inadmissible because he refused to repeat it in court unless the state waived the death penalty against him. Awarded a new trial in 1988, Cruz was again convicted and sentenced to death; Hernandez was also re-convicted, and sentenced to 80 years in prison. In 1992 the assistant attorney general assigned to prosecute the case on appeal resigned after becoming convinced of the defendants’ innocence. The convictions were again overturned on appeal after DNA tests exonerated Cruz and implicated the prisoner who had earlier confessed. In 1995 the court ordered a directed verdict of acquittal, and sharply criticized the police for their unprofessional handling of the case. Hernandez was released on bail and the prosecution dropped all charges.
In 1980 in Texas a black high school janitor, Clarence Brandley, and his white co-worker found the body of a missing 16-year-old white schoolgirl. Interrogated by the police, they were told, “One of you two is going to hang for this.” Looking at Brandley, the officer said, “Since you’re the nigger, you’re elected.” In a classic case of rush to judgment, Brandley was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. The circumstantial evidence against him was thin, other leads were ignored by the police, and the courtroom atmosphere reeked of racism. In 1986, Centurion Ministries – a volunteer group devoted to freeing wrongly convicted prisoners – came to Brandley’s aid. Evidence had meanwhile emerged that another man had committed the murder for which Brandley was awaiting execution. Brandley was not released until 1990. (Davies, White Lies 1991)

This sample of freakish and arbitrary innocence determinations also speaks directly to the unceasing concern that there are many more innocent people on death rows across the country – as well as who have been executed. Several factors seen in the above sample of cases help explain why the judicial system cannot guarantee that justice will never miscarry: overzealous prosecution, mistaken or perjured testimony, race, faulty police work, coerced confessions, the defendant’s previous criminal record, inept and under-resourced defense counsel, seemingly conclusive circumstantial evidence, and community pressure for a conviction, among others. And when the system does go wrong, it is often volunteers from outside the criminal justice system – journalists, for example – who rectify the errors, not the police or prosecutors. To retain the death penalty in the face of the demonstrable failures of the system is unacceptable, especially since there are no strong overriding reasons to favor the death penalty.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IS BARBARIC

Prisoners are executed in the United States by any one of five methods; in a few jurisdictions the prisoner is allowed to choose which one he or she prefers:

The traditional mode of execution, hanging , is an option still available in Delaware, New Hampshire and Washington. Death on the gallows is easily bungled: If the drop is too short, there will be a slow and agonizing death by strangulation. If the drop is too long, the head will be torn off.

Two states, Idaho and Utah, still authorize the firing squad . The prisoner is strapped into a chair and hooded. A target is pinned to the chest. Five marksmen, one with blanks, take aim and fire.

Throughout the twentieth century, electrocution has been the most widely used form of execution in this country, and is still utilized in eleven states, although lethal injection is the primary method of execution. The condemned prisoner is led – or dragged – into the death chamber, strapped into the chair, and electrodes are fastened to head and legs. When the switch is thrown the body strains, jolting as the voltage is raised and lowered. Often smoke rises from the head. There is the awful odor of burning flesh. No one knows how long electrocuted individuals retain consciousness. In 1983, the electrocution of John Evans in Alabama was described by an eyewitness as follows:

“At 8:30 p.m. the first jolt of 1900 volts of electricity passed through Mr. Evans’ body. It lasted thirty seconds. Sparks and flames erupted … from the electrode tied to Mr. Evans’ left leg. His body slammed against the straps holding him in the electric chair and his fist clenched permanently. The electrode apparently burst from the strap holding it in place. A large puff of grayish smoke and sparks poured out from under the hood that covered Mr. Evans’ face. An overpowering stench of burnt flesh and clothing began pervading the witness room. Two doctors examined Mr. Evans and declared that he was not dead.

“The electrode on the left leg was re-fastened. …Mr. Evans was administered a second thirty second jolt of electricity. The stench of burning flesh was nauseating. More smoke emanated from his leg and head. Again, the doctors examined Mr. Evans. [They] reported that his heart was still beating, and that he was still alive. At that time, I asked the prison commissioner, who was communicating on an open telephone line to Governor George Wallace, to grant clemency on the grounds that Mr. Evans was being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. The request …was denied.

“At 8:40 p.m., a third charge of electricity, thirty seconds in duration, was passed through Mr. Evans’ body. At 8:44, the doctors pronounced him dead. The execution of John Evans took fourteen minutes.” Afterwards, officials were embarrassed by what one observer called the “barbaric ritual.” The prison spokesman remarked, “This was supposed to be a very clean manner of administering death.”

The introduction of the gas chamber was an attempt to improve on electrocution. In this method of execution the prisoner is strapped into a chair with a container of sulfuric acid underneath. The chamber is sealed, and cyanide is dropped into the acid to form a lethal gas. Execution by suffocation in the lethal gas chamber has not been abolished but lethal injection serves as the primary method in states which still authorize it. In 1996 a panel of judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California (where the gas chamber has been used since 1933) ruled that this method is a “cruel and unusual punishment.” Here is an account of the 1992 execution in Arizona of Don Harding, as reported in the dissent by U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens:

“When the fumes enveloped Don’s head he took a quick breath. A few seconds later he again looked in my direction. His face was red and contorted as if he were attempting to fight through tremendous pain. His mouth was pursed shut and his jaw was clenched tight. Don then took several more quick gulps of the fumes.

“At this point Don’s body started convulsing violently…. His face and body turned a deep red and the veins in his temple and neck began to bulge until I thought they might explode. After about a minute Don’s face leaned partially forward, but he was still conscious. Every few seconds he continued to gulp in. He was shuddering uncontrollably and his body was racked with spasms. His head continued to snap back. His hands were clenched.

“After several more minutes, the most violent of the convulsions subsided. At this time the muscles along Don’s left arm and back began twitching in a wavelike motion under his skin. Spittle drooled from his mouth.

“Don did not stop moving for approximately eight minutes, and after that he continued to twitch and jerk for another minute. Approximately two minutes later, we were told by a prison official that the execution was complete.

“Don Harding took ten minutes and thirty one seconds to die.” ( Gomez v. U.S. District Court , 112 S.Ct. 1652)

The latest mode of inflicting the death penalty, enacted into law by more than 30 states, is lethal injection , first used in 1982 in Texas. It is easy to overstate the humaneness and efficacy of this method; one cannot know whether lethal injection is really painless and there is evidence that it is not. As the U.S. Court of Appeals observed, there is “substantial and uncontroverted evidence… that execution by lethal injection poses a serious risk of cruel, protracted death…. Even a slight error in dosage or administration can leave a prisoner conscious but paralyzed while dying, a sentient witness of his or her own asphyxiation.” ( Chaney v. Heckler , 718 F.2d 1174, 1983).

Its veneer of decency and subtle analogy with life-saving medical practice no doubt makes killing by lethal injection more acceptable to the public. Journalist Susan Blaustein, reacting to having witnessed an execution in Texas, comments:

“The lethal injection method … has turned dying into a still life, thereby enabling the state to kill without anyone involved feeling anything…. Any remaining glimmers of doubt – about whether the man received due process, about his guilt, about our right to take life – cause us to rationalize these deaths with such catchwords as ‘heinous,’ ‘deserved,’ ‘deterrent,’ ‘justice,’ and ‘painless.’ We have perfected the art of institutional killing to the degree that it has deadened our natural, quintessentially human response to death.”

Botched Lethal Injections

Nor does execution by lethal injection always proceed smoothly as planned. In 1985 “the authorities repeatedly jabbed needles into … Stephen Morin, when they had trouble finding a usable vein because he had been a drug abuser.” In 1988, during the execution of Raymond Landry, “a tube attached to a needle inside the inmate’s right arm began leaking, sending the lethal mixture shooting across the death chamber toward witnesses.”

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the current method of lethal injection used is constitutional, several people have suffered because of this form of execution. In Ohio, Rommel Broom was subjected to 18 attempts at finding a vein so that he could be killed by lethal injection. The process to try to execute him took over two hours. Finally, the governor had to stop the execution and grant the inmate a one week reprieve. Mr. Broom has not been executed because he is challenging the state’s right to hold a second execution attempt. Nor was he the only Ohio inmate so maltreated. During his 2006 execution Joseph Clark screamed, “it don’t work” and requested to take something by mouth so the torture would end when his executioners took thirty minutes to find a vein. Christopher Newton’s execution took over two hours – so long that he had to be given a bathroom break.

Lethal Injection Protocol Issues

Most lethal injections in the United States use a “cocktail” consisting of three drugs that sequentially render an inmate unconscious, cause paralysis and cease breathing, and stop an inmate’s heart. [6] But in 2011, the sole American manufacturer of sodium thiopental, a vital part of the three-drug cocktail, decided to discontinue production, forcing states to adapt their lethal injection methodology. [7] Some states have replaced the three-drug cocktail with a single substance, [8] while others have replaced thiopental in the three-drug sequence with another anesthetic. [9] Both three-drug and single-drug executions raise vital concerns: the three-drug cocktail’s paralyzing sedative may mask the inmate’s pain and suffering, while the single-drug method takes about 25 minutes to end a life (if there are no complications), compared with the ten-minute three-drug process. [10]

Although the Supreme Court held in 2008 that Kentucky’s three-drug lethal injection procedure did not violate the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment, [11] it is unclear whether states’ adapted procedures pass muster. Indeed, in February 2012, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals admonished the Arizona Department of Corrections, stating that its approach to execution “cannot continue” and questioning the “regularity and reliability” of protocols that give complete discretion to the corrections director to determine which and how many drugs will be used for each execution. [12] In Georgia, the state Supreme Court stayed the execution of Warren Hill hours before he was scheduled to die in July 2012 in order to review the Department of Corrections’ new single-drug lethal injection procedure. [13] The Missouri Supreme Court imposed a temporary moratorium on executions in August 2012, declaring that it would be “premature” to set execution dates for death row inmates given a pending lawsuit about whether the state’s lethal injection procedures are humane. The state had amended its injection protocol to use a single drug, propofol, which advocates say causes severe pain upon injection. [14]

Although similar suits are pending in other states, [15] not all protocol-based challenges have succeeded; in Texas and Oklahoma, executions have continued despite questions about the potential cruelty of lethal injection and the type or number of chemicals used. [16]

Regardless of whether states use one or three drugs for an execution, all of the major lethal injection drugs are in short supply due to manufacturers’ efforts to prevent the use of their products for executions [17] and European Union restrictions on the exportation of drugs that may be used to kill. [18] As a result, some state executioners have pursued questionable means of obtaining the deadly chemicals from other states and foreign companies, including a pharmaceutical wholesaler operating out of the back of a London driving school. [19] These backroom deals—which, astoundingly, have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—are now the subject of federal litigation that could impact the legitimacy of the American death penalty system. In March 2012, six death row inmates argued that the FDA had shirked its duty to regulate lethal substances and raised concerns about the “very real risk that unapproved thiopental will not actually render a condemned prisoner unconscious.” [20] A federal district judge agreed and ordered the FDA to confiscate the imported thiopental, but the agency has appealed. [21]

Witnessing the Execution

Most people who have observed an execution are horrified and disgusted. “I was ashamed,” writes sociologist Richard Moran, who witnessed an execution in Texas in 1985. “I was an intruder, the only member of the public who had trespassed on [the condemned man’s] private moment of anguish. In my face he could see the horror of his own death.”

Revulsion at the duty to supervise and witness executions is one reason why so many prison wardens – however unsentimental they are about crime and criminals – are opponents of capital punishment. Don Cabana, who supervised several executions in Missouri and Mississippi reflects on his mood just prior to witnessing an execution in the gas chamber:

“If [the condemned prisoner] was some awful monster deemed worthy of extermination, why did I feel so bad about it, I wondered. It has been said that men on death row are inhuman, cold-blooded killers. But as I stood and watched a grieving mother leave her son for the last time, I questioned how the sordid business of executions was supposed to be the great equalizer…. The ‘last mile’ seemed an eternity, every step a painful reminder of what waited at the end of the walk. Where was the cold-blooded murderer, I wondered, as we approached the door to the last-night cell. I had looked for that man before… and I still had not found him – I saw, in my grasp, only a frightened child. [Minutes after the execution and before] heading for the conference room and a waiting press corps, I… shook my head. ‘No more. I don’t want to do this anymore.'” 1996)

Recently, Allen Ault, former executioner for the State of Georgia, wrote , “The men and women who assist in executions are not psychopaths or sadists. They do their best to perform the impossible and inhumane job with which the state has charged them. Those of us who have participated in executions often suffer something very much like posttraumatic stress. Many turn to alcohol and drugs. For me, those nights that weren’t sleepless were plagued by nightmares.”

For some individuals, however, executions seem to appeal to strange, aberrant impulses and provide an outlet for sadistic urges. Warden Lewis Lawes of Sing Sing Prison in New York wrote of the many requests he received to watch electrocutions, and told that when the job of executioner became vacant. “I received more than seven hundred applications for the position, many of them offering cut-rate prices.” (Life and Death in Sing Sing 1928)

Public executions were common in this country during the 19th and early 20th centuries. One of the last ones occurred in 1936 in Kentucky, when 20,000 people gathered to watch the hanging of a young African American male. (Teeters, in Journal of the Lancaster County Historical Society 1960)

Delight in brutality, pain, violence and death may always be with us. But surely we must conclude that it is best for the law not to encourage such impulses. When the government sanctions, commands, and ceremoniously carries out the execution of a prisoner, it lends support to this destructive side of human nature.

More than two centuries ago the Italian jurist Cesare Beccaria, in his highly influential treatise On Crimes and Punishment (1764), asserted: “The death penalty cannot be useful, because of the example of barbarity it gives men.” Beccaria’s words still ring true – even if the death penalty were a “useful” deterrent, it would still be an “example of barbarity.” No society can safely entrust the enforcement of its laws to torture, brutality, or killing. Such methods are inherently cruel and will always mock the attempt to cloak them in justice. As Supreme Court Justice Arthur J. Goldberg wrote, “The deliberate institutionalized taking of human life by the state is the greatest conceivable degradation to the dignity of the human personality.”(Boston Globe, August 16, 1976)

Death Row Syndrome

Capital appeals are not only costly; they are also time-consuming. The average death row inmate waits 12 years between sentencing and execution, and some sit in anticipation of their executions on death row for up to 30 years. [22] For these prisoners, most of whom are housed in solitary confinement, this wait period may cause “Death Row Phenomenon” or “Death Row Syndrome.” Although the terms are often used interchangeably, “Death Row Phenomenon” refers to the destructive consequences of long-term solitary confinement [23] and the inevitable anxiety that results from awaiting one’s own death, while “Death Row Syndrome” refers to the severe psychological illness that often results from Death Row Phenomenon. [24]

In solitary confinement, inmates are often isolated for 23 hours each day without access to training or educational programs, recreational activities, or regular visits. Such conditions have been demonstrated to provoke agitation, psychosis, delusions, paranoia, and self-destructive behavior. [25] To inflict this type of mental harm is inhumane, but it also may prove detrimental to public safety. When death row inmates successfully appeal their sentences, they are transferred into the general inmate population, and when death row inmates are exonerated, they are promptly released into the community. [26] Death Row Syndrome needlessly risks making these individuals dangerous to those around them.

Neither Death Row Syndrome nor Death Row Phenomenon has received formal recognition from the American Psychiatric Association or the American Psychological Association. [27] In 1995, however, Justices Stevens and Breyer, in a memorandum regarding the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari to death row inmate Clarence Lackey, highlighted the “importance and novelty” of the question “whether executing a prisoner who has already spent some 17 years on death row violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.” [28] Further, as some scholars and advocates have noted, the mental deterioration symptomatic of Death Row Syndrome may render an inmate incompetent to participate in their own post-conviction proceedings. [29]

Death Row Syndrome gained international recognition during the 1989 extradition proceedings of Jens Soering, a German citizen arrested in England and charged with committing murder on American soil. [30] Soering argued, and the European Court of Human Rights agreed, that extraditing him to the United States would violate Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. [31] The Court explained that, in the United States, “the condemned prisoner has to endure for many years the conditions on death row and the anguish and mounting tension of living in the ever-present shadow of death” such that extraditing Soering would violate protections against “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” [32] Similar conclusions have been reached by the United Kingdom’s Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the United Nations Human Rights Committee, and the Canadian Supreme Court. [33]

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IS UNJUSTIFIED RETRIBUTION

Justice, it is often insisted, requires the death penalty as the only suitable retribution for heinous crimes. This claim does not bear scrutiny, however. By its nature, all punishment is retributive. Therefore, whatever legitimacy is to be found in punishment as just retribution can, in principle, be satisfied without recourse to executions.

Moreover, the death penalty could be defended on narrowly retributive grounds only for the crime of murder, and not for any of the many other crimes that have frequently been made subject to this mode of punishment (rape, kidnapping, espionage, treason, drug trafficking). Few defenders of the death penalty are willing to confine themselves consistently to the narrow scope afforded by retribution. In any case, execution is more than a punishment exacted in retribution for the taking of a life. As Nobel Laureate Albert Camus wrote, “For there to be equivalence, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life.” (Reflections on the Guillotine, in Resistance, Rebellion, and Death 1960)

It is also often argued that death is what murderers deserve, and that those who oppose the death penalty violate the fundamental principle that criminals should be punished according to their just desserts – “making the punishment fit the crime.” If this rule means punishments are unjust unless they are like the crime itself, then the principle is unacceptable: It would require us to rape rapists, torture torturers, and inflict other horrible and degrading punishments on offenders. It would require us to betray traitors and kill multiple murderers again and again – punishments that are, of course, impossible to inflict. Since we cannot reasonably aim to punish all crimes according to this principle, it is arbitrary to invoke it as a requirement of justice in the punishment of murder.

If, however, the principle of just deserts means the severity of punishments must be proportional to the gravity of the crime – and since murder is the gravest crime, it deserves the severest punishment – then the principle is no doubt sound. Nevertheless, this premise does not compel support for the death penalty; what it does require is that other crimes be punished with terms of imprisonment or other deprivations less severe than those used in the punishment of murder.

Criminals no doubt deserve to be punished, and the severity of the punishment should be appropriate to their culpability and the harm they have caused the innocent. But severity of punishment has its limits – imposed by both justice and our common human dignity. Governments that respect these limits do not use premeditated, violent homicide as an instrument of social policy.

Murder Victims Families Oppose the Death Penalty

Some people who have lost a loved one to murder believe that they cannot rest until the murderer is executed. But this sentiment is by no means universal. Coretta Scott King has observed, “As one whose husband and mother-in-law have died the victims of murder and assassination, I stand firmly and unequivocally opposed to the death penalty for those convicted of capital offenses. An evil deed is not redeemed by an evil deed of retaliation. Justice is never advanced in the taking of a human life. Morality is never upheld by a legalized murder.” (Speech to National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, Washington, D.C., September 26, 1981)

Kerry Kennedy Cuomo, daughter of the slain Senator Robert Kennedy, has written:

“I was eight years old when my father was murdered. It is almost impossible to describe the pain of losing a parent to a senseless murder.…But even as a child one thing was clear to me: I didn’t want the killer, in turn, to be killed. I remember lying in bed and praying, ‘Please, God. Please don’t take his life too.’ I saw nothing that could be accomplished in the loss of one life being answered with the loss of another. And I knew, far too vividly, the anguish that would spread through another family – another set of parents, children, brothers, and sisters thrown into grief.”(Foreword to Gray and Stanley, A Punishment in Search of A Crime 1989)

Across the nation, many who have survived the murder of a loved one have joined Murder Victims’ Families for Reconciliation or Murder Victims Families for Human Rights, in the effort to replace anger and hate toward the criminal with a restorative approach to both the offender and the bereaved survivors.

Groups of murder victims family members have supported campaigns for abolition of the death penalty in Illinois, Connecticut, Montana and Maryland most recently.

Barbara Anderson Young, the sister of James Anderson, who was allegedly run over by a white teenager in Mississippi in 2011, who reportedly wanted to hurt him because he was Black, wrote a letter to the local prosecutor on behalf of their family indicating the family’s opposition to the death penalty, which is “deeply rooted in our religious faith, a faith that was central in James’ life as well.” The letter also eloquently asks that the defendant be spared execution because the death penalty “historically has been used in Mississippi and the South primarily against people of color for killing whites.” It continues, “[e]xecuting James’ killers will not help balance the scales. But sparing them may help to spark a dialogue that one day will lead to the elimination of capital punishment.”

Lawrence Brewer, convicted of the notorious dragging death of James Byrd in Texas, was executed in 2011. Members of Mr. Byrd’s family opposed the death penalty, despite the racist and vicious nature of the killing. Of Brewer’s remorseless – he said he had no regrets the day he was executed – Byrd’s sister, Betty Boatner, said, “If I could say something to him, I would let him know that I forgive him and then if he still has no remorse, I just feel sorry for him.” Byrd’s daughter shared that she didn’t want Brewer to die because “it’s easy . . .(a)ll he’s going to do it go to sleep” rather than live every day with what he did and perhaps one day recognize the humanity of his victim. James Byrd’s son, Ross, points out “You can’t fight murder with murder . . .(l)ife in prison would have been fine. I know he can’t hurt my daddy anymore. I wish the state would take in mind that this isn’t what we want.”

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT COSTS MORE THAN INCARCERATION

It is sometimes suggested that abolishing capital punishment is unfair to the taxpayer, on the assumption that life imprisonment is more expensive than execution. If one takes into account all the relevant costs, however, just the reverse is true. “The death penalty is not now, nor has it ever been, a more economical alternative to life imprisonment.”) A murder trial normally takes much longer when the death penalty is at issue than when it is not. Litigation costs – including the time of judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and court reporters, and the high costs of briefs – are mostly borne by the taxpayer. The extra costs of separate death row housing and additional security in court and elsewhere also add to the cost. A 1982 study showed that were the death penalty to be reintroduced in New York, the cost of the capital trial alone would be more than double the cost of a life term in prison. (N.Y. State Defenders Assn., “Capital Losses” 1982)

The death penalty was eventually reintroduced in New York and then found unconstitutional and not reintroduced again, in part because of cost.

In Maryland, a comparison of capital trial costs with and without the death penalty for the years concluded that a death penalty case costs “approximately 42 percent more than a case resulting in a non-death sentence.” In 1988 and 1989 the Kansas legislature voted against reinstating the death penalty after it was informed that reintroduction would involve a first-year cost of more than $11 million. 59 Florida, with one of the nation’s most populous death rows, has estimated that the true cost of each execution is approximately $3.2 million, or approximately six times the cost of a life-imprisonment sentence.” (David von Drehle, “Capital Punishment in Paralysis,” Miami Herald, July 10, 1988)

A 1993 study of the costs of North Carolina’s capital punishment system revealed that litigating a murder case from start to finish adds an extra $163,000 to what it would cost the state to keep the convicted offender in prison for 20 years. The extra cost goes up to $216,000 per case when all first-degree murder trials and their appeals are considered, many of which do not end with a death sentence and an execution.

In 2011 in California, a broad coalition of organizations called Taxpayers for Justice put repeal of the death penalty on the ballot for 2012 in part because of the high cost documented by a recent study that found the state has already spent $4 billion on capital punishment resulting in 13 executions. The group includes over 100 law enforcement leaders, in addition to crime-victim advocates and exonerated individuals. Among them is former Los Angeles County District Attorney Gil Garcetti, whose office pursued dozens of capital cases during his 32 years as a prosecutor. He said, “My frustration is more about the fact that the death penalty does not serve any useful purpose and it’s very expensive.” Don Heller, a Republican and former prosecutor, wrote “I am convinced that at least one innocent person may have been executed under the current death penalty law. It was not my intent nor do I believe that of the voters who overwhelmingly enacted the death penalty law in 1978. We did not consider that horrific possibility.” Heller emphasized that he is not “soft on crime,” but that “life without parole protects public safety better than a death sentence.” Additionally, he said the money spent on the death penalty could be better used elsewhere, as California cuts funding for police officers and prosecutors. “Paradoxically, the cost of capital punishment takes away funds that could be used to enhance public safety.” [34]

From one end of the country to the other public officials decry the additional cost of capital cases even when they support the death penalty system. “Wherever the death penalty is in place, it siphons off resources which could be going to the front line in the war against crime…. Politicians could address this crisis, but, for the most part they either endorse executions or remain silent.” The only way to make the death penalty more “cost effective” than imprisonment is to weaken due process and curtail appellate review, which are the defendant’s (and society’s) only protection against the most aberrant miscarriages of justice. Any savings in dollars would, of course, be at the cost of justice : In nearly half of the death-penalty cases given review under federal habeas corpus provisions, the murder conviction or death sentence was overturned .

In 1996, in response to public clamor for accelerating executions, Congress imposed severe restrictions on access to federal habeas corpus and also ended all funding of the regional death penalty “resource centers” charged with providing counsel on appeal in the federal courts. (Carol Castenada, “Death Penalty Centers Losing Support Funds,” USA Today, Oct. 24, 1995) These restrictions virtually guarantee that the number and variety of wrongful murder convictions and death sentences will increase. The savings in time and money will prove to be illusory.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IS LESS POPULAR THAN THE ALTERNATIVES

It is commonly reported that the American public overwhelmingly approves of the death penalty. More careful analysis of public attitudes, however, reveals that most Americans prefer an alternative; they would oppose the death penalty if convicted murderers were sentenced to life without parole and were required to make some form of financial restitution. In 2010, when California voters were asked which sentence they preferred for a first-degree murderer, 42% of registered voters said they preferred life without parole and 41% said they preferred the death penalty. In 2000, when voters were asked the same question, 37% chose life without parole while 44% chose the death penalty . A 1993 nationwide survey revealed that although 77% of the public approves of the death penalty, support drops to 56% if the alternative is punishment with no parole eligibility until 25 years in prison. Support drops even further, to 49%, if the alternative is no parole under any conditions. And if the alternative is no parole plus restitution, it drops still further, to 41% . Only a minority of the American public would favor the death penalty if offered such alternatives.

INTERNATIONALLY, CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IS WIDELY VIEWED AS INHUMANE AND ANACHRONISTIC

An international perspective on the death penalty helps us understand the peculiarity of its use in the United States. As long ago as 1962, it was reported to the Council of Europe that “the facts clearly show that the death penalty is regarded in Europe as something of an anachronism….” 1962)

Today, either by law or in practice, all of Western Europe has abolished the death penalty. In Great Britain, it was abolished (except for cases of treason) in 1971; France abolished it in 1981. Canada abolished it in 1976. The United Nations General Assembly affirmed in a formal resolution that throughout the world, it is desirable to “progressively restrict the number of offenses for which the death penalty might be imposed, with a view to the desirability of abolishing this punishment.” By mid-1995, eighteen countries had ratified the Sixth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, outlawing the death penalty in peacetime.

Underscoring worldwide support for abolition was the action of the South African constitutional court in 1995, barring the death penalty as an “inhumane” punishment. Between 1989 and 1995, two dozen other countries abolished the death penalty for all crimes. Since 1995, 43 more abolished it. All told, 71% of the world’s nation’s have abolished the death penalty in law or practice; only 58 of 197 retain it .

International Law

A look at international trends and agreements sheds light on the peculiarity of the United States’ continued imposition of capital punishment. Today, over 140 nations have abolished the death penalty either by law or in practice and, of the 58 countries that have retained the death penalty, only 21 carried out known executions in 2011. [35] Furthermore, capital punishment has compelled the United States to abstain from signing or ratifying several major international treaties and perhaps to violate international agreements to which it is a party:

In 1989, the General Assembly adopted the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), one of the UN’s primary human rights treaties. [36] Parties to the Protocol must take all necessary measures to abolish the death penalty and protect their citizens’ right not to be executed, although signatories may reserve the right to apply the death penalty for serious military criminals during wartime. [37] The United States has yet to join the 35 signatories or 75 parties to the Protocol, trailing behind the world’s leading democracies in the protection of human rights.

Although the Second Protocol to the ICCPR is the only worldwide instrument calling for death penalty abolition, there are three such instruments with regional emphases. Adopted by the Council of Europe in 1982 and ratified by eighteen nations by mid-1995, the Sixth Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) provides for the abolition of capital punishment during peacetime. In 2002, the Council adopted the Thirteenth Protocol to the ECHR, which provides for the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances, including times of war or imminent threat of war. In 1990, the Organization of American States adopted the Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty, which provides for total abolition but allows states to reserve the right to apply the death penalty during wartime. [38]

The United States has ratified the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR), an international treaty setting forth a framework for consular relations among independent countries. Under Article 36 of the VCCR, local authorities are obligated to inform all detained foreigners “without delay” of their right to request consular notification of their detention and their right to demand and access opportunities to communicate with their consular representatives. [39] Local authorities have repeatedly disregarded this obligation, resulting in the International Court of Justice holding in 2004 that states had violated the VCCR by failing to inform 51 named Mexican nationals of their rights. All 51 were sentenced to death. When the State of Texas refused to honor this judgment and provide relief for the 15 death-row inmates whose VCCR rights it had violated, President George W. Bush sought to intervene on the prisoners’ behalf, taking the case to the United States Supreme Court. The Court denied the President’s appeal, and Texas has gone on to execute inmates whose VCCR rights it had failed to honor.

In 1994, the United States signed the United Nations (UN) Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). [40] The treaty, which has now been ratified or signed by 176 nations, outlaws the imposition of physical or psychological abuse on people in detention. While it does not explicitly prohibit capital punishment, the treaty does forbid the intentional infliction of pain. Since 1976, however, more than 20 executions in the United States have involved prolonged, painful, or shocking errors, such as an inmate’s head catching fire or a lengthy and torturous search for a vein suitable for lethal injection. Additionally, accidents aside, our methods of execution—lethal injection, electrocution, firing squad, gas chamber, and hanging—may be inherently painful. The CAT also forbids the infliction of pain and suffering “based on discrimination of any kind,” [41] yet racial inequality is endemic to our death rows .

Also in 1994, the United States ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), a treaty intended to protect against racial discrimination, whether intentional or resulting from seemingly neutral state policies. To meet its obligations as a party to ICERD, the United States must take steps to review and amend policies and procedures that create or perpetuate racial discrimination, including capital punishment. [42]

Once in use everywhere and for a wide variety of crimes, the death penalty today is generally forbidden by law and widely abandoned in practice, in most countries outside the United States. Indeed, the unmistakable worldwide trend is toward the complete abolition of capital punishment. In the United States, opposition to the death penalty is widespread and diverse. Catholic, Jewish, and Protestant religious groups are among the more than 50 national organizations that constitute the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty.

The Case Against the Death Penalty was first published by the ACLU as a pamphlet in 1973. The original text was written by Hugo Adam Bedau, Ph.D., who also contributed to several subsequent editions of the pamphlet. This version was most recently revised by the ACLU in 2012.

[1] Glenn L. Pierce & Michael L. Radelet, Death Sentencing in East Baton Rouge Parish, 1990-2008 , 71 La. L. Rev. 647, 671 (2011), available at http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/PierceRadeletStudy.pdf .

[2] Liebman et. al, Los Tocayos Carlos , 43 Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 711, 1104 (2012).

[3] See Andrew Cohen, Yes, America, We Have Executed an Innocent Man , Atlantic, May 14, 2012, http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/05/yes-america-we-have-executed-an-innocent-man/257106/ .

[4] See id.

[5] See id. ; Carlos DeLuna Case: The Fight to Prove an Innocent Man Was Executed , PBS Newshour, May 24, 2012, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june12/deathpenalty_05-24.html .

[6] A Three-Drug Cocktail , WashingtonPost.com, Sep. 26, 2007, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2007/09/26/GR2007092600116.html ; see also Victoria Gill, The Search for a Humane Way to Kill , BBC News, Aug. 7, 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19060961 .

[7] See Carol J. Williams, Maker of Anesthetic Used in Executions is Discontinuing Drug, L.A. Times, Jan. 22, 2011, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/22/local/la-me-execution-drug-20110122 ; John Schwartz, Death Penalty Drug Raises Legal Questions , N.Y. Times, Apr. 13, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/us/14lethal.html?pagewanted=all .

[8] See Brandi Grissom, Texas Will Change its Lethal Injection Protocol , Tex. Tribune, July 10, 2012, www.texastribune.org/texas-dept-criminal-justice/death-penalty/texas-changing-its-lethal-injection-protocol/ ; Rob Stein, Ohio Executes Inmate Using New, Single-Drug Method for Death Penalty , Wash. Post, Mar. 11, 2011, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/10/AR2011031006250.html ; David Beasley, Georgia Delays Execution Amid Drug Protocol Change , Reuters, July, 17, 2012, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/17/us-usa-execution-georgia-idUSBRE86G14L20120717 ; Rhonda Cook & Bill Rankin, State Changes Lethal Injection Protocol, Reschedules Execution , Atlanta Journal-Constitution, July 17, 2012, http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/state-changes-lethal-injection-1479424.html ; Steve Eder, A Texas First: Single-Drug Used to Execute Inmate , WSJ Law Blog, http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/07/19/a-texas-first-single-drug-used-to-execute-inmate/ ; Idaho Switches Execution Protocol to Single-Drug Lethal Injection , Spokesman.com, May 18, 2012, http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/2012/may/18/idaho-switches-execution-protocol-single-drug-lethal-injection/ .

[9] See Carol J. Williams, California’s New Lethal Injection Protocol Tossed By Judge, L.A. Times, Dec. 17, 2011, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/17/local/la-me-executions-20111217 ; Kathy Lohr, New Lethal Injection Drug Raises Concerns , NPR, Jan. 29, 2011, http://www.npr.org/2011/01/29/133302950/new-lethal-injection-drug-raises-concerns ; Steve Eder, Virginia Adds New Drug for Lethal Injections , WSJ Law Blog, July 27, 2012, http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/07/27/virginia-adds-new-drug-for-lethal-injections/ .

[10] Laura Vozzella, Virginia opts for One-Drug Lethal Injection Protocol , Wash. Post, July 27, 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/virginia-opts-for-one-drug-lethal-injection-protocol/2012/07/27/gJQA8jxiEX_story.html .

[11] See Linda Greenhouse, Supreme Court Allows Lethal Injection for Execution , N.Y. Times, Apr. 17, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/us/16cnd-scotus.html?pagewanted=all .

[12] See Michael Kiefer, State is Sued Again Over Its Lethal-Injection Procedure , USA Today, Feb. 7, 2012, http://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/Valley%20&%20State/2012-02-07-PNI0207met–executionsART_ST_U.htm ; Court Gives Arizona Warning About Execution Protocol , Associated Press, Feb. 28, 2012, available at http://www.azcentral.com/community/pinal/articles/2012/02/28/20120228arizona-moorman-execution-death-row-inmate-lawyers-seek-stays.html . Notably, however, the panel did not halt Arizona’s scheduled executions. Id.

[13] David Beasley, Georgia Inmate Gets Stay Hours Before Scheduled Execution , Reuters, July 23, 2012, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/23/us-usa-execution-georgia-idUSBRE86M1F720120723 .

[14] Steve Eder, Missouri Executions on Hold Amid Concerns About New Drug , Aug. 15, 2012, WSJ Law Blog, http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/08/15/missouri-executions-on-hold-amid-concerns-about-new-drug/ .

[15] Melissa Anderson, ACLU Challenges Montana’s Lethal Injection Protocol , KXLH.com, Aug. 1, 2012, http://www.kxlh.com/news/aclu-challenges-montana-s-lethal-injection-protocol/ .

[16] See Eder, supra note 3; Steve Olfason, Oklahoma to Execute Man Who Killed Ex-Girlfriend and Her Two Kids , Chicago Tribune, Aug. 14, 2012, http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-08-14/news/sns-rt-us-usa-execution-oklahomabre87d0s8-20120814_1_jerry-massie-method-of-lethal-injection-three-drug-protocol ; Steve Eder, Oklahoma Execution Set After Lethal Injection Challenge Fails , Aug. 13, 2012, WSJ Law Blog, http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/08/13/oklahoman-set-for-executution-after-lethal-injection-challenge-fails/ .

[17] See Grissom, supra note 3; Ed Pilkington, Texas Executions Threatened As Stocks of Death Penalty Drug Run Low , Guardian, Feb. 14, 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/14/texas-executions-threatened-stocks-run-low ; John Schwartz, Seeking Execution Drug, States Cut Legal Corners , N.Y. Times, Apr. 13, 2011,

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/us/14lethal.html?pagewanted=all ; Kiefer, supra note 7.

[18] EU Imposes Strict Controls on ‘Execution Drug’ Exports, BBC News, Dec. 20, 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16281016 ; Matt McGrath, FDA Goes to Court to Secure Drugs for Lethal Injections , BBC World, June 1, 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18253578 .

[19] See Jeremy Pelofsky, U.S. Wants Lawsuit Over Execution Drug Dismissed , Reuters, Apr. 20, 2011, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/20/us-usa-execution-lawsuit-idUSTRE73J7MH20110420 ; Michael Kiefer, Execution Drugs: Arizona Inmate Lawsuit Seeks FDA Policing , Ariz. Republic, Feb. 3, 2011, http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/02/02/20110202arizona-execution-drug-fda-lawsuit-brk02-ON.htm l; Kevin Johnson, Lawsuit Seeks to Block Imports of Key Execution Drug , USA Today, Feb. 2, 2011, http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/02/lawsuit-seeks-to-block-imports-of-key-execution-drug/1#.UA2pmKBCzGc ; Ryan Gabrielson, Lethal Injection Drug Tied to London Wholesaler , California Watch, Jan. 7, 2011, http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/lethal-injection-drug-tied-london-wholesaler-7888 ; Ryan Gabrielson, California Lethal Injection: Prison Officials Refuse to Hand Over Lethal Injection Drug , California Watch, May 30, 2012, available at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/30/california-lethal-injection_n_1556155.html .

[20] Pelofsky, supra note 14.

[21] See Raymond Bonner, FDA’s Immoral Stance on Lethal Injection Drugs , Bloomberg, July 29, 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-29/fda-s-immoral-stance-on-lethal-injection-drugs.html .

[22] See Elizabeth Rapaport , A Modest Proposal: The Aged of Death Row Should be Deemed Too Old to Execute, 77 Brook. L. Rev. 1089 (Spring 2012); Michael J. Carter, Wanting to Die: The Cruel Phenomenon of “Death Row Syndrome”, Alternet, Nov. 7, 2008, http://www.alternet.org/rights/106300/waiting_to_die%3A_the_cruel_phenomenon_of_%22death_row_syndrome%22/ ; Dr. Karen Harrison and Anouska Tamony, Death Row Phenomenon, Death Row Syndrome, and Their Affect [sic.] on Capital Cases in the U.S. , Internet Journal of Criminology 2010, available at http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/Harrison_Tamony_%20Death_Row_Syndrome%20_IJC_Nov_2010.pdf .

[23] See Stop Solitary – The Dangerous Overuse of Solitary Confinement in the United States, ACLU.org, https://www.aclu.org/stop-solitary-dangerous-overuse-solitary-confinement-united-states-0 .

[24] See Harrison and Tamony, supra note 25.

[25] See Carter, supra note 25; Death Penalty Information Center, Time on Death Row (2006), at http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/time-death-row .

[26] See id.

[27] Amy Smith, Not “Waiving” But Drowning: The Anatomy of Death Row Syndrome and Volunteering for Execution , 17 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J. 237, 243, available at http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/pilj/vol17no2/documents/17-2SmithArticle.pdf .

[28] Lackey v. Texas, 115 S. Ct. 1421, 1421 (1995) (Stevens, J., concurring in the denial of certiorari).

[29] Stephen Blank, Killing Time: The Process of Waiving Appeal – The Michael Ross Death Penalty Cases , 14 J.L. & Pol’y 735, 738-39 (2006).

[30] Soering v. UK , App. No. 14038/88, 11 Eur. H.R. Rep. 439 (1989), available at http://eji.org/eji/files/Soering%20v.%20United%20Kingdom.pdf .

[31] See David Wallace-Wells, What is Death Row Syndrome? , Slate, Feb. 1, 2005, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2005/02/what_is_death_row_syndrome.html ; Smith supra note 30.

[32] Smith supra note 30. (quoting Soering , 11 Eur. H. R. Rep. at 475-76).

[33] Id. at 239.

[34] Carol J. Williams, Death Penalty: Exhaustive Study Finds Death Penalty Costs California $184 Million a Year , L.A. Times, June 20, 2011, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/20/local/la-me-adv-death-penalty-costs-20110620 .

[35] Figures on the Death Penalty , Amnesty International, http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty/numbers .

[36] UN General Assembly, Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty , Dec. 15, 1989, A/RES/44/128, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b3a70.html [accessed 15 August 2012] [ hereinafter Second Optional Protocol].

[37] See Pierre Desert, Second Optional Protocol: Frequently Asked Questions , World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, June 27, 2008, http://www.worldcoalition.org/Second-Optional-Protocol-Frequently-Asked-Questions.html ; Pierre Desert, Second Optional Protocol: The Only Global Treaty Aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty , World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, June 24, 2008, www.worldcoalition.org/UN-Protocol-the-only-global-treaty-aiming-at-the-abolition-of-the-death-penalty.html ; Second Optional Protocol, supra note 21.

[38] Desert, Second Optional Protocol: Frequently Asked Questions , supra note 22.

[39] Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Mar. 19, 1967, 596 U.N.T.S. 261, available at http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_2_1963.pdf .

[40] United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, available at http://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/UNTS/Volume%201465/v1465.pdf .

[41] Richard C. Dieter, Introduction: Ford Foundation Symposium, Nov. 12, 1998, available at http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/us-death-penalty-and-international-law-us-compliance-torture-and-race-conventions .

[42] International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Mar. 7, 1966, 660 U.N.T.S. 195, available at http://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/UNTS/Volume%20660/v660.pdf .

Related Issues

Capital Punishment

Stay Informed

By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU’s privacy statement.

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 .

“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.

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.

Take Action

10 Reasons to Abolish the Death Penalty

Today, Amnesty International released its annual report on the use of the death penalty worldwide . 2015 was a year of extremes – the number of executions worldwide skyrocketed, but here in the United States executions dropped to their lowest in decades. Here are 10 reasons why it’s time to abolish the death penalty now:

2. The death penalty in the United States continues to decline. 2015 saw the fewest executions in the U.S. in 24 years and the fewest death sentences in 25 years. All 28 executions in 2015 were isolated to just six states, and only three states – Texas, Missouri, and Georgia – were responsible for 85%.

5. Pakistan resumed executions in December 2014 following the Peshwar school bombing , originally only for terrorism related offenses. However, they soon began executing for a wide variety of crimes and substantially increased use of the death penalty, becoming the 3 rd top executor in the world. Pakistan executed 326 people in 2015.

6. Despite these high numbers, the global trend toward abolition continues . Four countries abolished the death penalty for all crimes in 2015: Republic of Congo, Fiji, Madagascar, and Suriname. 102 countries have abolished the death penalty, a majority of the nations on Earth. 140 countries are abolitionist in law or practice.

7. At least 9 people – 4 in Iran and at least 5 in Pakistan – were executed for crimes committed when they were under 18 years of age. Bangladesh, Iran, Maldives and Pakistan sentenced juvenile offenders to death in 2015, in violation of international law.

8. People with mental or intellectual disabilities were executed or under sentence of death in several countries including Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan and the USA. For example in the U.S. state of of Georgia, Warren Hill was executed despite every expert who assessed him – even those retained by the state – agreeing that he was intellectually disabled.

10. Both in the U.S. and globally, those that carry out executions are becoming an increasingly isolated minority. 25 countries carried out executions in 2015. In the United States, only 6 states carried out executions. Those that continue to use the death penalty often use it against those with intellectual disabilities, those in poverty, and otherwise vulnerable people, illustrating the fundamental flaws with this cruel, inhuman, and ineffective punishment.

The death penalty is absurd and cruel but the movement to abolish it in the US and around the world is growing, and some progress is being made, but there is a lot of work yet to be done. It’s time to end the death penalty once and for all!

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

Six reasons why we must abolish 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.

Games & Quizzes
History & Society
Science & Tech
Biographies
Animals & Nature
Geography & Travel
Arts & Culture
On This Day
One Good Fact
New Articles
Lifestyles & Social Issues
Philosophy & Religion
Politics, Law & Government
World History
Health & Medicine
Browse Biographies
Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
Environment
Fossils & Geologic Time
Entertainment & Pop Culture
Sports & Recreation
Visual Arts
Demystified
Image Galleries
Infographics
Top Questions
Britannica Kids
Saving Earth
Space Next 50
Student Center
Introduction
Historical considerations

Moral arguments

Utilitarian arguments, practical arguments, the abolition movement.

Capital punishment in the early 21st century

Arguments for and against capital punishment

Capital punishment has long engendered considerable debate about both its morality and its effect on criminal behaviour. Contemporary arguments for and against capital punishment fall under three general headings: moral , utilitarian, and practical.

Supporters of the death penalty believe that those who commit murder , because they have taken the life of another, have forfeited their own right to life. Furthermore, they believe, capital punishment is a just form of retribution , expressing and reinforcing the moral indignation not only of the victim’s relatives but of law-abiding citizens in general. By contrast, opponents of capital punishment, following the writings of Cesare Beccaria (in particular On Crimes and Punishments [1764]), argue that, by legitimizing the very behaviour that the law seeks to repress—killing—capital punishment is counterproductive in the moral message it conveys. Moreover, they urge, when it is used for lesser crimes, capital punishment is immoral because it is wholly disproportionate to the harm done. Abolitionists also claim that capital punishment violates the condemned person’s right to life and is fundamentally inhuman and degrading.

Although death was prescribed for crimes in many sacred religious documents and historically was practiced widely with the support of religious hierarchies , today there is no agreement among religious faiths, or among denominations or sects within them, on the morality of capital punishment. Beginning in the last half of the 20th century, increasing numbers of religious leaders—particularly within Judaism and Roman Catholicism—campaigned against it. Capital punishment was abolished by the state of Israel for all offenses except treason and crimes against humanity, and Pope John Paul II condemned it as “cruel and unnecessary.”

Supporters of capital punishment also claim that it has a uniquely potent deterrent effect on potentially violent offenders for whom the threat of imprisonment is not a sufficient restraint. Opponents, however, point to research that generally has demonstrated that the death penalty is not a more effective deterrent than the alternative sanction of life or long-term imprisonment.

There also are disputes about whether capital punishment can be administered in a manner consistent with justice . Those who support capital punishment believe that it is possible to fashion laws and procedures that ensure that only those who are really deserving of death are executed. By contrast, opponents maintain that the historical application of capital punishment shows that any attempt to single out certain kinds of crime as deserving of death will inevitably be arbitrary and discriminatory. They also point to other factors that they think preclude the possibility that capital punishment can be fairly applied, arguing that the poor and ethnic and religious minorities often do not have access to good legal assistance, that racial prejudice motivates predominantly white juries in capital cases to convict black and other nonwhite defendants in disproportionate numbers, and that, because errors are inevitable even in a well-run criminal justice system, some people will be executed for crimes they did not commit. Finally, they argue that, because the appeals process for death sentences is protracted, those condemned to death are often cruelly forced to endure long periods of uncertainty about their fate.

Under the influence of the European Enlightenment , in the latter part of the 18th century there began a movement to limit the scope of capital punishment. Until that time a very wide range of offenses, including even common theft, were punishable by death—though the punishment was not always enforced , in part because juries tended to acquit defendants against the evidence in minor cases. In 1794 the U.S. state of Pennsylvania became the first jurisdiction to restrict the death penalty to first-degree murder, and in 1846 the state of Michigan abolished capital punishment for all murders and other common crimes. In 1863 Venezuela became the first country to abolish capital punishment for all crimes, including serious offenses against the state (e.g., treason and military offenses in time of war). San Marino was the first European country to abolish the death penalty, doing so in 1865; by the early 20th century several other countries, including the Netherlands, Norway , Sweden , Denmark , and Italy , had followed suit (though it was reintroduced in Italy under the fascist regime of Benito Mussolini ). By the mid-1960s some 25 countries had abolished the death penalty for murder, though only about half of them also had abolished it for offenses against the state or the military code. For example, Britain abolished capital punishment for murder in 1965, but treason, piracy, and military crimes remained capital offenses until 1998.

During the last third of the 20th century, the number of abolitionist countries increased more than threefold. These countries, together with those that are “de facto” abolitionist—i.e., those in which capital punishment is legal but not exercised—now represent more than half the countries of the world. One reason for the significant increase in the number of abolitionist states was that the abolition movement was successful in making capital punishment an international human rights issue, whereas formerly it had been regarded as solely an internal matter for the countries concerned.

In 1971 the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution that, “in order fully to guarantee the right to life, provided for in…the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” called for restricting the number of offenses for which the death penalty could be imposed, with a view toward abolishing it altogether. This resolution was reaffirmed by the General Assembly in 1977. Optional protocols to the European Convention on Human Rights (1983) and to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1989) have been established, under which countries party to the convention and the covenant undertake not to carry out executions. The Council of Europe (1994) and the EU (1998) established as a condition of membership in their organizations the requirement that prospective member countries suspend executions and commit themselves to abolition. This decision had a remarkable impact on the countries of central and eastern Europe , prompting several of them—e.g., the Czech Republic , Hungary , Romania , Slovakia , and Slovenia—to abolish capital punishment.

In the 1990s many African countries—including Angola, Djibouti, Mozambique, and Namibia—abolished capital punishment, though most African countries retained it. In South Africa , which formerly had one of the world’s highest execution rates, capital punishment was outlawed in 1995 by the Constitutional Court, which declared that it was incompatible with the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment and with “a human rights culture.”

Five reasons to abolish the death penalty

With the fourth anniversary of the executions of Australians Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran in Indonesia fast approaching, w e must continue to challenge the notion of “an eye for an eye”.

Here are five reasons why.

1. You can’t take it back

The death penalty is irreversible. Absolute judgments may lead to people paying for crimes they did not commit. Texas man Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in Texas in 2004 for allegedly setting a fire that killed his three daughters. Following his execution, further evidence revealed that Willingham did not set the fire that caused their deaths. But it came too late.

2. It doesn’t deter criminals

There is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than a prison term. In fact, evidence reveals the opposite .

Since abolishing the death penalty in 1976, Canada’s murder rate has steadily declined and as of 2016 was at its lowest since 1966.

3. There’s no ‘humane’ way to kill

The 2006 execution of Angel Nieves Diaz, by a so-called ‘humane’ lethal injection, took 34 minutes and required two doses. Doctors have said that it is likely Diaz’ death was painful .

Other brutal methods of execution used around the world include hanging, shooting and beheading. The nature of these deaths only continues to perpetuate the cycle of violence and may not alleviate the pain already suffered by the victims’ family .

4. It makes a public spectacle of an individual’s death

Executions are often undertaken in an extremely public manner, with public hangings in Iran or live broadcasts of lethal injections in the US. According to UN human rights experts, executions in public serve no legitimate purpose and only increase the cruel, inhuman and degrading nature of this punishment.

“All executions violate the right to life. Those carried out publicly are a gross affront to human dignity which cannot be tolerated,” said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, Amnesty International’s Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa.

“All executions violate the right to life. Those carried out publicly are a gross affront to human dignity which cannot be tolerated.” Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui

5. The death penalty is disappearing

In 2017 two countries – Guinea and Mongolia – abolished the death penalty for all crimes.

Today, 106 countries (the majority of the world’s states) have turned their backs on the death penalty for good. Those that continue to execute are a tiny minority standing against a wave of opposition.

There are countless arguments for and against the death penalty. In an imperfect world where we can never be sure we have ever got the “worst of the worst” is it ever justified to take a life?

Find out more about Amnesty’s campaign to end the death penalty . Join our Human Rights Defenders program to help us abolish the death penalty.

A protester holds 'Stop executions in Iran' and 'Free Iran' placards

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

An artistic shot of a prisoner's hands holding prison cell bars.

5 reasons some people think the world needs the death penalty

10 myths about the death penalty

A person kneels in prayer at a #keephopealive vigil in Sydney to end the death penalty

10 frequently asked questions about the death penalty

A close up photo of a globe set against a black background

10 ways you can change the world today

10 Reasons Why The Death Penalty is Wrong

The death penalty is wrong because it disproportionately affects certain groups, inflicts physical and psychological torment, burdens taxpayers, and doesn’t deter or resolve the root causes of crime.

Over 70% of the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty , but it’s still used in places like China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and the United States. Public opinion is divided, but over the years, support for the death penalty has waned. Supporters say it’s a valuable crime deterrent while opponents argue it fails in this purpose. In this article, we’ll explore these claims, as well as other reasons why the death penalty is wrong.

#1. It’s inhumane #2. It inflicts psychological torment #3. It burdens taxpayers #4. It doesn’t deter crime #5. It doesn’t address the root causes of crime #6. It’s biased against people experiencing poverty #7. It’s disproportionately hurts people with disabilities #8. It has a racial bias #9. It’s used as a tool of authoritarianism #10. It’s irreversible

#1. It’s inhumane

Content warning: This paragraph includes descriptions of a botched execution

Methods of execution have included firing squads, hanging, the electric chair, and lethal injections. Are these punishments inhumane? Death penalty critics look to The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment , which is an international treaty intended to prevent actions considered inhumane. While the Convention doesn’t take a clear stance on the death penalty, many believe executions should be classified as cruel and inhumane. For those who believe executions can be performed “humanely,” there’s still the problem of botched executions. Research shows that 3% of executions between 1890-2010 in the US were botched. Lethal injection has the highest rate of error despite being the most common execution option. When injections go wrong, it can take a long time for a prisoner to die.

In 2014 in Oklahoma, Clayton Lockett was subjected to a botched execution. Things started poorly while the execution team hunted for a viable vein and realized they didn’t have the right needles . Then, it took at least 16 pokes to get an IV inserted. Lockett was in clear distress as the drugs began to enter his body, and the execution was halted. Lockett died of a heart attack 43 minutes after the first drug – midazolam – was administered. While it’s not clear if the drug can be blamed in Lockett’s case, sedatives like midazolam have played a role in several botched executions. Given these facts, the death penalty can easily be considered inhumane.

#2. It inflicts psychological torment

While the death penalty can cause severe physical pain, the time spent on death row can inflict psychological torment, as well. According to The Death Penalty Information Center, death-row prisoners in the United States typically spend over a decade waiting for their execution dates or for their death sentences to be overturned. During those agonizing years, prisoners are isolated, excluded from any employment or educational programs, and restricted from exercise or visitation. This can cause what some experts call “death row syndrome,” which makes prisoners suicidal and delusional. The prisoner is essentially tortured while on death row.

The death penalty doesn’t only affect death-row prisoners. Those working on death row suffer, too. In 2022, NPR released an investigation where they spoke with current and former executioners, lawyers, wardens, and other workers who had been involved with more than 200 executions. They reported “serious mental and physical repercussions.” Nearly everyone NPR spoke with no longer supported the death penalty. While some may still believe death is an appropriate punishment for certain crimes, society needs to consider the health of those tasked with carrying out that punishment.

#3. It burdens taxpayers with high costs

States use taxpayer money to fund executions. You may think death penalty sentences cost less than life imprisonment, but research shows that’s not true. According to data collected by Amnesty International, Kansas paid 70% more for a death penalty case than a comparable non-death penalty case. The median cost of a non-death penalty case (through the end of incarceration) is $740,000 while the median cost of a death penalty case through execution is a striking $1.26 million. Why is the death penalty so expensive? Legal and pre-trial fees, as well as the length of death penalty trials, the cost of appeals, and heightened security on death row all cost more than non-death penalty cases.

Many taxpayers have moral qualms about their taxes going to the death penalty, but there are tangible consequences, too. The money used for death penalty cases is being diverted from other measures such as mental health treatment, victim services, drug treatment programs, and more. Most people would prefer their taxes to pay for these types of services rather than long trials, appeals, and other death-penalty case activities.

#3. It doesn’t deter crime

Many people can admit the death penalty is not a perfect system, but if it deters crime, isn’t it worth keeping? That statement contains a big “if.” The Death Penalty Information Center has information showing that states without the death penalty have a consistently lower murder rate than states with the death penalty. Since 1990, the gap has increased. A 2020 analysis found that 9 out of 10 states with the highest pandemic murder rates were states with the death penalty. 8 out of the 11 states with the lowest pandemic murder rates had abolished the death penalty. Data like this suggests that the death penalty does not deter murder.

Why isn’t the threat of death enough to dissuade people from committing murder? The answer may lie in human psychology and the minds of those committing crimes. According to an article in Psychology Today, most offenders don’t behave rationally during a crime. Poor mental health is a common trigger. According to research, 43% of those in state prisons have a diagnosed mental disorder. When it comes to what’s known as “expressive crimes,” which are crimes driven by rage, depression, and drug or alcohol use, people are not thinking about the consequences they might face. The death penalty doesn’t factor into their decision-making.

#4. It doesn’t address the root causes of crime

The causes of crime are complex, but there’s little doubt that the death penalty fails to address them. Consider the United States, which experienced a post-2020 increase in violence. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, gun violence was a major contributor. The FBI found that guns were responsible for 77% of murders nationwide in 2020. In the same report, COVID-19 was frequently referenced as a factor as more people experienced disruptions to their jobs and social lives. Americans’ mental health suffered, as well, and while people with mental illness are more likely to be the victims of crime rather than perpetrators, certain illnesses (and a lack of treatment) are linked to criminal behavior.

The death penalty doesn’t address any of the possible roots of violent crime, including socioeconomic disruptions and mental health. Considering the cost of death penalty cases and their effect on the mental health of all those involved, one could argue that the death penalty contributes to conditions that lead to crime.

Want to learn more about the death penalty? Check out these articles .

#6. It’s biased against people experiencing poverty

The death penalty is not applied equally based on the crimes people commit. Certain groups are much more likely than others to receive a sentence. According to The International Federation of Human Rights, 95% of prisoners on death row in the United States come from “underprivileged backgrounds. ” This doesn’t mean people experiencing poverty have an inherent urge to commit crimes. The criminalization of poverty increases a person’s risk for arrest, while the high cost of education, mental health treatment, substance abuse treatment, and other assistance can push people into crime.

Once in the criminal justice system, those with money can pay for private lawyers, investigations, appeals, and other actions that help them avoid the death penalty. Those experiencing poverty have to rely on underfunded public defenders. Rather than punishing those who’ve committed the most severe crimes, the system punishes those with the fewest resources. If the death penalty disproportionately affects people experiencing poverty, it’s a deeply unfair and unjust system.

#7. It’s disproportionately hurting people with intellectual disabilities

People with intellectual disabilities face increased discrimination in the criminal justice system. They’re more likely to falsely confess to a crime , less equipped to work with lawyers, and more likely to experience harsh and violent treatment in prison. In the United States, jurisdictions using capital punishment are required to make sure that people with intellectual disabilities are not sentenced to death or executed. However, the standards for this determination are not consistent. According to The Innocence Project, at least 12 states use IQ scores to determine intellectual disability , a method many experts find problematic. Certain states also require clear evidence, while others only ask for a “preponderance of evidence.” This means a person could be considered intellectually disabled in one state and not in another.

Even if a person with intellectual disabilities is not ultimately killed by the state, the road to a new sentence is brutal. Raymond Riles, who was sent to death row in 1976, remained there for more than 45 years despite being repeatedly deemed mentally incompetent. In 2021, his death sentence was finally tossed and he was sentenced to life in prison. Riles’ story is just one of many where a person with intellectual disabilities is mistreated or executed.

What factor influences your opinion on the death penalty the most?

Whether or not it deters crime
Whether or not it causes physical or emotional pain
Whether or not it’s a waste of money
Whether or not it discriminates against certain groups
Whether or not it’s exploited by the state

View Results

#8. It has a racial bias

In the United States, racial discrepancies are the biggest concern for many death penalty critics. According to research, 35% of people executed in the last 40 years have been Black, despite the fact Black Americans only make up 13% of the general population. When researchers take a closer look, they discover patterns of discrimination based on race. Virginia in particular has been scrutinized for its history, which has roots in early capital punishment laws. White defendants could only be executed for first-degree murder, while a variety of non-homicide crimes could get enslaved Black defendants executed. Between 1900-1969, Virginia executed 73 Black men for non-homicide crimes , while 185 were executed for murder. In that same time frame, no white person was executed for a non-homicide crime while 46 were executed for murder. In 2021, Virginia abolished the death penalty, citing the state’s history of racial disparities.

There’s also racial bias regarding what crimes receive death penalty sentences. According to a 2003 study, prosecutors were more likely to seek the death penalty when the victim was white , while they were less likely to pursue that verdict if the victim was Black. Another study, this one from 2007, reflected similar findings. Nationally, mountains of research show racial bias in how the death penalty is applied.

#9. It’s used as a tool of authoritarianism

In theory, the death penalty is only meant to punish the most serious crimes, like murder. However, in places around the world, governments use executions freely and for non-lethal crimes. According to Amnesty International, recorded executions in 2022 hit their highest figure in five years . 883 people (which does not count the thousands possibly executed in China) were killed across 20 countries, which represents a 53% rise since 2021. Amnesty’s Secretary General says almost 40% of all known executions are for drug-related offenses, while in Iran, people were executed for protesting the regime. Because the governments still using the death penalty often hide their numbers, there are likely more executions not on the record.

It’s clear many governments inflicting the death penalty are not interested in justice, but rather in suppression and control. By using the death penalty arbitrarily, authorities set shifting definitions for what’s “unacceptable” in society and what’s an appropriate punishment. It makes citizens fearful and violates their human rights. As long the death penalty is legal, it has the potential to be abused for a government’s own purposes.

#10. It can’t be reversed in light of new evidence or errors

What makes the death penalty distinct from life in prison is that the judgment can’t be reversed if new evidence is discovered. It’s a disturbingly frequent occurrence. In 2000, Professor James Liebman from Columbia Law School released a study examining every capital conviction and appeal between 1973-1995. More than 90% of the states that gave death sentences had overall error rates of 52% or higher. 85% of states had error rates of 60% or higher. A more recent analysis from 2014 collected data from all death sentences between 1973-2004. They estimated that around 1 in 25 of those given a death sentence had likely been incorrectly convicted. While most of those who receive a death penalty sentence are eventually removed from death row to serve life imprisonment, innocent prisoners are never freed.

The Death Penalty Information Center maintains a database of exonerations , which means the person was acquitted or the charges were dismissed completely. Reasons include false confessions, insufficient evidence, perjury, official misconduct, and inadequate legal defense. Data like this exposes how flawed the criminal justice system is and how frequent errors are. It’s not a system we should trust with people’s lives.

The death penalty: a reading list

Interested in learning more about the death penalty? Here’s where to start:

Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption | Bryan Stevenson

This 2015 book (also made into a film) follows Bryan Stevenson as he establishes the Equal Justice Initiative. The book mostly focuses on Stevenson’s work for Water McMillian, a Black man sentenced to death for a crime he didn’t commit.

Dead Man Walking: The Eyewitness Account of the Death Penalty That Sparked a National Debate | Helen Prejean

Written in 1994, this book follows a Roman Catholic nun as she learns about the death penalty in America, gets to know everyone touched by the system, and works through her beliefs.

Let the Lord Sort Them: The Rise and Fall of the Death Penalty | Maurice Chammah

In this award-winning 2022 book, Maurice Chammah tracks the story of capital punishment through stories of those with personal experience, like a prosecutor turned judge, a lawyer, executioners, and the prisoners living on death row. Chammah is a journalist and staff writer for The Marshall Project.

Right Here, Right Now: Life Stories from America’s Death Row | Ed. Lynden Harris

A collection of 99 first-person, anonymous accounts of men on death row in the United States, this 2021 book shines a light on the humanity of the people who’ve been sentenced to death. The book is organized into eight life stages from early childhood right to the moment a man faces his execution.

15 Political Issues We Must Address

15 Trusted Charities Fighting for LGBTQ+ Rights

16 Inspiring Civil Rights Leaders You Should Know

15 Trusted Charities Fighting for Housing Rights

15 Examples of Gender Inequality in Everyday Life

11 Approaches to Alleviate World Hunger

15 Facts About Malala Yousafzai

12 Ways Poverty Affects Society

15 Great Charities to Donate to in 2024

15 Quotes Exposing Injustice in Society

14 Trusted Charities Helping Civilians in Palestine

The Great Migration: History, Causes and Facts

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.

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Death Penalty — Why The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished

Why The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished

Categories: Death Penalty

About this sample

Words: 791 |

Published: May 19, 2020

Words: 791 | Pages: 2 | 4 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

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 692 words

2 pages / 760 words

3 pages / 1282 words

5 pages / 2356 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Death Penalty

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

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 [...]

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, has been a contentious issue around the world for centuries. This form of punishment involves the judicial execution of a convicted individual for committing a serious crime, [...]

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 [...]

I believe the death penalty should be legal throughout the nation. Discussing the death penalty pros and cons, there are many reasons as to why I think the death penalty should be legalized in all states, including deterrence, [...]

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

Study Guides
Homework Questions

Death Penalty Argumentative essay

Why California Is Swinging Right on Crime

Viral videos and their outraging, perception-changing, galvanizing effects may have propelled both outraged skepticism of tough-on-crime tactics and the backlash to it.

Handcuffs, but one of the cuffs is an outline of California

Listen to this article

Produced by ElevenLabs and News Over Audio (NOA) using AI narration.

A s Gavin Newsom rose from mayor of San Francisco to governor of California, he championed progressive efforts to reclassify various felonies as misdemeanors, to end the death penalty, and to legalize marijuana. After George Floyd’s murder in 2020, he signed laws barring cops from using a controversial chokehold and requiring independent probes in police shootings, bragging that “California has advanced a new conversation about broader criminal justice reform.”

But since his second term began last year, he has more often talked like a tough-on-crime conservative, promoting efforts to hire more cops; to surge state police into high-crime cities; to impose harsher penalties on drug dealers, car burglars, and retail thieves; to install more surveillance cameras; and to deploy state prosecutors to Alameda County, where the progressive district attorney is flailing. “An arrest isn’t enough,” Newsom said this year, urging more prosecutions. “Whether it’s ‘ bipping ’ or carjacking, attempted murder or fentanyl trafficking, individuals must be held accountable for their crimes using the full and appropriate weight of the law.”

Mark Leibovitch: Gavin Newsom can’t help himself

That hard pivot to the politics of law and order describes not only California’s governor, but the Golden State as a whole. Voters and the politicians who represent them, mostly Democrats, embraced progressive attitudes and rhetoric toward criminal-justice reform for at least a decade. By the summer of 2020, the University of Southern California politics professor Dan Schnur told the Financial Times, “it appeared we were witnessing a seminal shift in public thinking on these issues.” But just two years later, he continued, “more traditional approaches to public safety” were resurgent.

San Francisco recalled its progressive district attorney, Chesa Boudin, in 2022. That city’s progressive mayor, London Breed, now says, “Compassion is killing people. And we have to push forth some tough love.” Los Angeles’s progressive mayor, Karen Bass, keeps trying to hire more cops. Many Californians favor harsher penalties for what are now misdemeanors.

Why did the politics of crime change so rapidly? Rising crime surely played a major part. Still, crime does not approach the rate that afflicted California during the 1980s and ’90s, when law-and-order concerns last dominated its politics. And there is intense new concern about crime even in Orange County, Ventura County, and the Central Coast, where it has increased less than elsewhere and most residents are neither unsafe nor governed by overreaching progressives. I doubt the pendulum would be swinging as far or as fast but for changes in the tenor of crime that Californians have seen, most often via video. In fact, viral videos and their outraging, perception-changing, galvanizing effects may have propelled both outraged skepticism of tough-on-crime tactics and the backlash to it.

F or a case study in the changing rates of crime, consider Oakland. After averaging 80 murders per year from 2014 to 2019, Oakland suffered 97 murders in 2020, 132 murders in 2021, 119 in 2022, and 124 in 2023. That’s when the local NAACP, which had focused on stopping police violence on the first anniversary of Floyd’s death, published an open letter demanding a state of emergency. “Women are targeted by young mobs and viciously beaten and robbed in downtown and uptown neighborhoods,” it declared. “Asians are assaulted in Chinatown. Street vendors are robbed in Fruitvale. News crews have their cameras stolen while they report on crime. Everyone is in danger.”

The tenor of the crime changed as well—it feels newly brazen, in your face, unapologetic. This shift is vividly captured by the writer Matt Feeney, a resident of Oakland, in an insightful 2023 essay, “ California’s Criminals Need an Audience .” He opens the essay by describing a crime he recently experienced: A car braked hard on a busy commercial strip on a Saturday afternoon and a young passenger in a hoodie and mask emerged, then calmly smashed a window of a parked vehicle, stole something, and leaped back into his own car, repeating the crime farther up the street. Rather than immediately fleeing, they even made a U-turn so that they could rob cars parked on the opposite side, “the whole time holding the stunned attention of Oakland pedestrians, who are well accustomed to car burglary but conditioned from earlier years to think of it as something done in stealth.” Onlookers felt they ought to do something––but they did not, Feeney explained, because he and they feared that the robbers had guns.

Read: Why California wants to recall its most progressive prosecutors

Witnessing acts like that altered how Feeney thinks of crime. Before, if he woke up to discover that someone had smashed his car window in the night, he would try, like many in progressive communities, to think of the crime as “structural,” flowing from societal forces such as poverty, inequality, and racism, rather than the product of bad choices freely made by individuals. But a window-smasher “doing his thing in broad daylight,” close enough to make eye contact with those too fearful to stop him, “appears to have not just agency but a bubbling surplus of it,” he wrote. “He looks like the most purposeful, composed, indeed self-realised person on the street.”

Of course, even in an era of rising crime, most Californians haven’t seen any such spectacle in person. But “this sense of full agency and conscious, vigorous industry also comes through in surveillance videos of recent local crimes,” Feeney adds, “videos of a robbery team carefully using a car to break into several auto repair shops on the same block; a young man calmly pistol-whipping a woman across the face as he begins to rob her; another young man who, showing real commitment to his task, drags a screaming woman down a street by the strap of her purse.”

Such footage has repeatedly gone viral on the major social-media platforms and has been highlighted by almost every news organization that serves Californians. Politicians are pressed to address it. Drive-time talk-radio hosts rant about it. It is hard to escape.

Back in 2014, reflecting on the Rodney King tape, and the later explosion of citizen videos that smartphones enabled, I published an essay called “ Video Killed Trust in Police Officers .” In ensuing years, as social-media users shared videos of police abuses, viral clips continued to change the impressions of many Americans and radicalized some. But even as such videos fueled the Black Lives Matter movement, perhaps making it inevitable that the Floyd video would galvanize public support for a generational reckoning, I failed to grasp something important: The same technology would propel the pendulum in the opposite direction.

A different sort of outrageous behavior––brazen lawlessness and disorder––is just as easily documented by video cameras and just as easily amplified by algorithms. As the tenor of crime changed, that footage also altered the impressions of Americans, outraging many. Past studies suggest not only that media influences public perceptions of crime, but that seeing crime on local TV news in particular has a greater effect on fear of crime than reading about it. This result is relevant not only because TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube are platforms where viral videos of today’s lawlessness and disorder routinely amass lots of views, but also because some of those viral videos are then broadcast on local TV, embedded in the web versions of local newspaper articles, and circulated in the Nextdoor feeds of people in the communities where they occurred. The videos reach every generation where they get information.

An illustrative example is a 2023 news segment broadcast on KCAL 9, a station in Los Angeles, which then reposted the segment on YouTube. It contains several scenes of surveillance footage of retail thefts where a crowd of people rush into a store in a coordinated surge to grab as much as they can as quickly as possible before fleeing the scene. News producers presumably first saw the footage on TikTok or YouTube.

Rewatching the segment, I’m struck that it contains more outraging footage of robbers wreaking havoc in stores than anything I had witnessed since the 1992 L.A. riots. Perhaps because, when I was a newspaper reporter in the aughts, I interviewed shop owners and retail employees terrorized by crime, I find that footage particularly outraging. Others might feel more upset or anxiety watching a city block filled with people taking fentanyl in the open, or footage of criminals captured by the Ring doorbell of their own neighbor. Whatever kind of lawlessness or disorder bothers you most, odds are that it’s only a click away. As San Francisco Police Chief Bill Scott said , addressing viral videos of lawbreaking in his own city and their predictable effects, “People then start fearing crime, even if they haven’t been victimized.”

When I ran my theory by the criminologist Peter Moskos, he agreed that routine exposure to such footage changes some of us, because seeing video of lawlessness feels less abstract than hearing about it.

Don’t forget about the “order” part of law-and-order sentiments, he added––lots of people “want to and even enjoy playing by the rules, and expect things to go well if they do,” he said in an email. So “unshameful public rule-breaking bothers people viscerally, even if it doesn’t directly affect them.” Consider this video of two well-dressed women shoplifting from a San Francisco boutique. No one is frightened of those two, but many people are outraged by them.

I n 2020, when many Californians were newly awakened to flaws in the criminal-justice system, progressives were seduced by a politics of outrage. I understand why. After decades of relative indifference to police abuses, viral videos of bad behavior by cops were fueling highly emotional protests, extreme rhetoric, righteous indignation, social pressure for solidarity, and strident anger at anyone who urged nuance or expressed skepticism about the prevailing narrative. That “reckoning” struck many at the time as a rare opportunity for overdue change.

But outrage politics proved a poor foundation for lasting criminal-justice reform. A movement powered by outrage turned out to be too unfocused to identify the most prudent reforms, too radicalized to avoid overreach (like the ill-fated push by activists to focus on defunding the police instead of improving it), and too shallow and fleeting in the support it commanded to survive a sustained increase in crime––a pitfall progressive activists failed to anticipate. Many were too young to remember a time when crime was rising, too privileged to worry about how quickly a spike in murders would end more lower-class lives than many years of police killings, and too self-righteously indignant to engage with their best critics or even to guard against grift .

Californians are correct to react against the progressive excesses of 2020 and its most harmful consequences, largely borne by the poor and vulnerable. As the Oakland NAACP put it , “Failed leadership, including the movement to defund the police, our District Attorney’s unwillingness to charge and prosecute people who murder and commit life threatening serious crimes, and the proliferation of anti-police rhetoric have created a heyday for Oakland criminals. If there are no consequences for committing crime in Oakland, crime will continue to soar.”

But as Californians apply pressure on the state’s leaders to address lawlessness and disorder, I hope they avoid new excesses by learning a key lesson from the moment they are reacting against: that unless outrage is tempered and mastered, it fuels maladaptive responses.

In 1994, during a high-crime period in California history, Republican Governor Pete Wilson boosted his reelection campaign by signing a law mandating life sentences for most criminals convicted of a third felony. Voters overwhelmingly reaffirmed that approach, passing a “three strikes” ballot initiative that same year with 72 percent of the vote.

Read: The murder rate is suddenly falling

In ensuing years, the state’s prison population soared and violent crime declined, ultimately reaching 50-year lows in 2014 . The incarceration rate was so high that a backlash to it was inevitable. And more safety created new political possibilities. For example, that year, nearly 60 percent of voters supported Proposition 47, a ballot initiative that aimed to reduce prison populations and save money by making most nonviolent property and drug crimes misdemeanors rather than felonies. Given an opportunity to reverse course in 2020, voters rejected it: So long as crime was under control, the progressive new approach to punishment proved politically sustainable.

This November, voters will get a new opportunity to amend Proposition 47. Should they? I have doubts. I suspect that when 2024 is over, we’ll look back and see crime falling even without any changes to the law. I wonder whether police and prosecutors more aggressively enforcing misdemeanors would do more good and cost less than changing some misdemeanors back to felonies. Having lived through the “law and order” politics of the ’90s and the “defund and disorder” politics of recent years, I am wary of yet another excessive swing of the pendulum.

But more than the outcome of these policy fights, I care about how we decide them. Californians can master our outrage by prizing data over anecdote, greeting viral videos with circumspection, and tempering rather than cheering rash, emotional responses to infuriating injustices. Mediating the pendulum’s swing makes it less likely to swing back too hard.

Share full article

Supported by

In Florida, Democrats Hope Abortion Will Revive Their Fortunes

A close-up photograph of three people’s wrists, with beaded bracelets reading “Take,” “Pro-choice,” “Back" and “Florida.”

By Mara Gay

Photographs by Damon Winter

Ms. Gay, a member of the editorial board, reported from Miami and Orlando, Fla.

On the Miami River recently, a parade of gleaming white pleasure boats cruised through the city. Half-naked revelers basked on their decks, swaying to Taylor Swift anthems and waving bottles of champagne as they floated by.

A few yards away, in the windowless conference room of an aging Hyatt hotel, a group of Florida Democrats was far more sober. The state may be known for careless hedonism and family pleasures, but Democrats will be spending the summer working on a very serious and nearly desperate plan to rescue the Florida Democratic Party.

Nikki Fried, the last Democrat elected to statewide office in Florida — over half a decade ago, as agriculture commissioner — dug her heels into the carpeted floor. “It’s going to be women that are going to get us out of this,” Ms. Fried, now Florida’s Democratic Party chair, told a roomful of statehouse candidates, all of them women.

The Democrats had gathered in Miami to plot a comeback in Florida, where they have been largely ousted from power. Central to their efforts is building on anger over the state’s new six-week abortion ban, which is among the most extreme in the country and is opposed by a majority of Florida voters, who have consistently said in polls they wanted more access to reproductive care, not less.

In January, anger over Republican restrictions on abortion in the state led a Democrat, Tom Keen, to flip a state House seat in Orlando. Democrats aren’t pretending they can do the same thing with the state’s presidential vote, which is still likely to go to Donald Trump, but they believe championing reproductive freedom can help them regain a foothold in the statehouse in Tallahassee. They are eyeing a long-term strategy that begins with flipping at least five state House seats this November, unseating a Republican supermajority.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

Want all of The Times? Subscribe .

IMAGES

Should The Death Penalty Be Abolished?
Death Penalty
Essay On Death Penalty
Why Should Death Penalty be Abolished? Free Essay Example
Ethics Of The Death Penalty Philosophy Free Essay Example
Should We Abolish the Death Penalty? Free Essay Example

COMMENTS

Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments
Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments. 1. Legality. The United States is one of 55 countries globally with a legal death penalty, according to Amnesty International. As of Mar. 24, 2021, within the US, 27 states had a legal death penalty (though 3 of those states had a moratorium on the punishment's use).
Death Penalty: Why the Death Penalty Should be Abolished Essay
The gist of Nicole Smith's (Smith par. 1-8) argument is that the death penalty or capital punishment is necessary because it deters murder, thereby saving the victims' families and friends the pain of losing loved ones. She further argues that in cases where a murder has occurred, the death penalty serves justice to the victim's loved ones.
Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished?
Justice Breyer wrote in that 46-page dissent that he considered it "highly likely that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment," which bars cruel and unusual punishments. He said that ...
After California, the real reason we should end the death penalty—for
The governor is not one to cloud his words with political ambiguity: "My ultimate goal is to end the death penalty in California," he said at a news conference in Sacramento. Bravo. Of course ...
PDF The Death Penalty V. Human Rights: Why Abolish the Death Penalty?
The death penalty is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state. The state can exercise no greater power over a person than that of deliberately depriving him or her of life. At the heart of the case for abolition, therefore, is the question of whether the state has the right to do so.
Should We Abolish the Death Penalty?
March 20, 2019. In 2018, the United States executed 25 people and over 2,700 prisoners remain on "death row.". It is one of only 56 nations in the world that still practice capital punishment ...
‌The End of the Death Penalty?
Feb 14, 2023. By Elaine McArdle. More than 50 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Furman v. Georgia that the death penalty was an unconstitutional violation of the Eighth Amendment ban against cruel and unusual punishment. With that, 629 people on death row nationwide had their capital sentences commuted, and the death penalty disappeared ...
The Case Against the Death Penalty
A look at international trends and agreements sheds light on the peculiarity of the United States' continued imposition of capital punishment. Today, over 140 nations have abolished the death penalty either by law or in practice and, of the 58 countries that have retained the death penalty, only 21 carried out known executions in 2011.
HC: Death penalty should be abolished in the 21st century
HC: Death penalty should be abolished in the 21st century. "For many years, the United Nations has opposed the death penalty in all circumstances," said UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk. "I share this position with the firmest conviction. Ultimately, this is about the UN Charter's promise of the highest standards of protection of all ...
Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty
The death penalty is applied unfairly and should not be used. Agree. Disagree. Testimony in Opposition to the Death Penalty: Arbitrariness. Testimony in Favor of the Death Penalty: Arbitrariness. The Death Penalty Information Center is a non-profit organization serving the media and the public with analysis and information about capital ...
10 Reasons to Abolish the Death Penalty
Here are 10 reasons why it's time to abolish the death penalty now: 1. There was more than a 50% increase in 2015 executions from 2014. Amnesty confirmed 1,634 executions in 2015, 573 more than the previous year and the highest Amnesty has recorded in 25 years. That figure excludes executions in China, which likely executes more than the rest ...
Why we're working to end 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 ...
5 reasons some people think the world needs 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 ...
The Death Penalty
The death penalty violates the most fundamental human right - the right to life. It is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. The death penalty is discriminatory. It is often used against the most vulnerable in society, including the poor, ethnic and religious minorities, and people with mental disabilities.
US death penalty must be abolished, rights experts urge ...
"We further urge the president, as well as members of Congress, to strongly support legislative efforts to formally abolish the death penalty at a federal level." They argued that the president "should consider all other possible federal-level actions including directing the Department of Justice to stop seeking the death penalty and ...
Capital punishment
By the mid-1960s some 25 countries had abolished the death penalty for murder, though only about half of them also had abolished it for offenses against the state or the military code. For example, Britain abolished capital punishment for murder in 1965, but treason, piracy, and military crimes remained capital offenses until 1998.
Five reasons to abolish the death penalty
Here are five reasons why. 1. You can't take it back. The death penalty is irreversible. Absolute judgments may lead to people paying for crimes they did not commit. Texas man Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in Texas in 2004 for allegedly setting a fire that killed his three daughters.
Death Penalty
About the death penalty. Amnesty International holds that the death penalty breaches human rights, in particular the right to life and the right to live free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Both rights are protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN in 1948.
10 Reasons Why The Death Penalty is Wrong
Supporters say it's a valuable crime deterrent while opponents argue it fails in this purpose. In this article, we'll explore these claims, as well as other reasons why the death penalty is wrong. #1. It's inhumane. #2. It inflicts psychological torment. #3. It burdens taxpayers. #4.
Abolishing The Death Penalty: a Persuasive Call for Justice
Many states have abolished the death penalty and have resorted to life sentences, which would be more humanely correct. What other reasons would it take to completely prove with facts that taking someone's life is completely unacceptable, especially by a governing body. There are many examples stated in the reading of why the death penalty has ...
Should The Death Penalty Be Abolished
Death penalty should be abolished. This essay shows many arguments against death penalty and concludes that abolishing the death penalty is the right choice because it will send a deeper meaning telling people that death is not a way to resolve the issue. There is always another way to save someone's life. Terminating the death penalty is one ...
Why The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished
The Death Penalty has frequently been on the rise lately. In Micheal Cohen's "Death Penalty should be Abolished now", he gives some very good valid point on why the Death Penalty should be Abolished. Starting off with one being that the death penalty deters crime, stating that Murder usually is a crime of passion, if you do it once you ...
PDF 10 reasons to abolish the death penalty
1 - the death penalty violates the right to life. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) recognises each person's right to life. Article 4 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples ́ Rights (ACHPR) states that "human beings are inviolable. Every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life and the physical and moral ...
Death Penalty Argumentative essay (pdf)
Potvin 1 Tyler Potvin Mrs. Moynihan Social Justice 6A 10 September 2020 Death Penalty Argumentative essay The death penalty has been around since the beginning of civilization. It has been used to punish those who have committed the worst of crimes and deters others from doing the same. It was acceptable throughout history although in recent years it has been criticized more and more for being ...
Essay on Death Penalty: Eye for an Eye
This essay will discuss how the death penalty should not be considered a suitable punishment and on the contrary how the law and society should condemn and abolish it as a means of punishment as there is no official evidence that killing individuals contributes to less wrongdoing or deters crime. ... We will write an essay sample crafted to ...
Why California Is Swinging Right on Crime
He opens the essay by describing a crime he recently experienced: A car braked hard on a busy commercial strip on a Saturday afternoon and a young passenger in a hoodie and mask emerged, then ...
In Florida, Democrats Hope Abortion Will Revive Their Fortunes
Ms. Gay, a member of the editorial board, reported from Miami and Orlando, Fla. On the Miami River recently, a parade of gleaming white pleasure boats cruised through the city. Half-naked revelers ...

Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments

People who view this page may also like:

Cite This Page

Death Penalty: Why the Death Penalty Should be Abolished Essay

(Yes) Nicole Smith ­– An Argument in Favor of Capital Punishment

After California, the real reason we should end the death penalty—for good.

Most popular

The latest from america

Faculty Scholarship

History of a ‘remarkable intervention’

Birth of the capital defense bar

Local prosecutors and state courts take over

Furman’s ultimate impact?

Modal Gallery

The Case Against the Death Penalty

Related Issues

Stay Informed

Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty

Retribution

Arbitrariness & Discrimination

10 Reasons to Abolish the Death Penalty

Accessibility

Line height

Why we’re working to end the death penalty

What is the death penalty?

Why are we against it?

1. It’s the ultimate denial of human rights

2. It doesn’t deter crime

3. It’s irreversible, and mistakes happen

4. It’s often used within unfair justice systems

5. It discriminates

6. It can be used as a political tool

Where is the death penalty used?

While you’re here…

Moral arguments

Arguments for and against capital punishment

Five reasons to abolish the death penalty

1. You can’t take it back

2. It doesn’t deter criminals

3. There’s no ‘humane’ way to kill

4. It makes a public spectacle of an individual’s death

5. The death penalty is disappearing

Related Posts

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

5 reasons some people think the world needs the death penalty

10 myths about the death penalty

10 frequently asked questions about the death penalty

10 ways you can change the world today

10 Reasons Why The Death Penalty is Wrong

#1. It’s inhumane

#2. It inflicts psychological torment

#3. It burdens taxpayers with high costs

#3. It doesn’t deter crime

#4. It doesn’t address the root causes of crime

#6. It’s biased against people experiencing poverty

#7. It’s disproportionately hurting people with intellectual disabilities

#8. It has a racial bias

#9. It’s used as a tool of authoritarianism

#10. It can’t be reversed in light of new evidence or errors

The death penalty: a reading list

Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption | Bryan Stevenson

Dead Man Walking: The Eyewitness Account of the Death Penalty That Sparked a National Debate | Helen Prejean

Let the Lord Sort Them: The Rise and Fall of the Death Penalty | Maurice Chammah

Right Here, Right Now: Life Stories from America’s Death Row | Ed. Lynden Harris

You may also like

15 Political Issues We Must Address

15 Trusted Charities Fighting for LGBTQ+ Rights

16 Inspiring Civil Rights Leaders You Should Know

15 Trusted Charities Fighting for Housing Rights

15 Examples of Gender Inequality in Everyday Life

11 Approaches to Alleviate World Hunger

15 Facts About Malala Yousafzai

12 Ways Poverty Affects Society

15 Great Charities to Donate to in 2024

15 Quotes Exposing Injustice in Society

14 Trusted Charities Helping Civilians in Palestine

The Great Migration: History, Causes and Facts

Why The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished

Cite this Essay

Related Essays

(Yes) Nicole Smith – An Argument in Favor of Capital Punishment