The first is that there is a possibility of error. However, the chance that there might be an error is separate from the issue of whether the death penalty can be justified or not. If an error does occur, and an innocent person is executed, then the problem lies in the court system, not in the death penalty. Furthermore, most activities in our world, in which humans are involved, possess a possibility of injury or death. Construction, sports, driving, and air travel all offer the possibility of accidental death even though the highest levels of precautions are taken. These activities continue to take place, and continue to occasionally take human lives, because we have all decided, as a society, that the advantages outweigh the unintended loss. We have also decided that the advantages of having dangerous murderers removed from our society outweigh the losses of the offender.
The second argument against capital punishment is that it is unfair in its administration. Statistics show that the poor and minorities are more likely to receive the death penalty. Once again, this is a separate issue. It can’t be disputed sadly, the rich are more likely to get off with a lesser sentence, and this bias is wrong. However, this is yet another problem of our current court system. The racial and economic bias is not a valid argument against the death penalty. It is an argument against the courts and their unfair system of sentencing.
The third argument is actually a rebuttal to a claim made by some supporters of the death penalty. The claim is that the threat of capital punishment reduces violent crimes. Opponents of the death penalty do not agree and have a valid argument when they say, “The claims that capital punishment reduces violent crime is inconclusive and certainly not proven.”
The fourth argument is that the length of stay on death row, with its endless appeals, delays, technicalities, and retrials, keep a person waiting for death for years on end. It is both cruel and costly. This is the least credible argument against capital punishment. The main cause of such inefficiencies is the appeals process, which allows capital cases to bounce back and forth between state and federal courts for years on end. If supporting a death row inmate for the rest their life costs less than putting them to death, and ending their financial burden on society, then the problem lies in the court system, not in the death penalty. As for the additional argument, that making a prisoner wait for years to be executed is cruel, then would not waiting for death in prison for the rest of your life be just as cruel, as in the case of life imprisonment without parole.
Many Americans will tell you why they are in favor of the death penalty. It is what they deserve. It prevents them from ever murdering again. It removes the burden from taxpayers. We all live in a society with the same basic rights and guarantees. We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with equal opportunities. This is the basis for our society. It is the foundation on which everything else is built upon. When someone willfully and flagrantly attacks this foundation by murdering another, robbing them of all they are, and all they will ever be, then that person can no longer be a part of this society. The only method that completely separates cold blooded murderers from our society is the death penalty.
As the 20th century comes to a close, it is evident that our justice system is in need of reform. This reform will shape the future of our country, and we cannot jump to quick solutions such as the elimination of the death penalty. As of now, the majority of American supports the death penalty as an effective solution of punishment.
“An eye for an eye,” is what some Americans would say concerning the death penalty. Supporters of the death penalty ask the question, “Why should I, an honest hardworking taxpayer, have to pay to support a murderer for the rest of their natural life? Why not execute them and save society the cost of their keep?” Many Americans believe that the death penalty is wrong. However, it seems obvious to some Americans that the death penalty is a just and proper way to handle convicted murderers.
Essay on Argument For the Death Penalty
1310 Words6 Pages
Should any individual be killed for their crimes or mistakes? Adam Liptak, a writer for the New York Times, found that, “According to roughly a dozen recent studies, executions save lives. For each inmate put to death, the studies say, 3 to 18 murders are prevented.” Therefore, the death penalty must be upheld in the United States of America in order to protect its citizens and to properly enforce justice. The death penalty ensures fair retribution for the loved ones of the criminal’s victim. In 1977, Clarence Ray Allen was convicted for murder after arranging the death of a witness against him in a burglary case and was subsequently sentenced to life in prison without parole. In 1980, Allen organized the killings of the witnesses who…show more content…
... After all that time, he finally got what he deserved” (If Death Penalty Is Abolished, What Next?). Without the death penalty, proper justice is unattainable. In addition to serving justice where it is due, the death penalty provides a powerful deterrent to crime. H. Naci Mocan, an economist at Louisiana State University and an author of a study that finds that each death penalty carried out deters five murders said, “I personally am opposed to the death penalty, but my research shows that there is a deterrent effect.” To many, including economists, the cause-and-effect is obvious: When the cost of an object rises, the number of objects bought will decline drastically (Liptak). Also, murderers often put lots of thought and planning into what goes into the act, and that planning will inevitably involve weighing out the pros and cons. Any type of discipline or penalty will have some sort of deterrent effect, but a more drastic penalty will lead to stronger discouragement from crime (Ardaiz). Because preventing murder is in America’s best interests, the U.S. is obligated to use the most severe punishment available in order to deter murder (Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty). Nevertheless, some critics of the death penalty argue that the chance of an innocent person being executed far outweighs the benefits of executing a guilty one. After all, there will always be some factor of human error or bias (First, Abolish the Death Penalty). For example, on