Cesare Beccaria's Argument Against Capital Punishment

Two wrongs don’t make a right, or do they? For years capital punishment, or the death penalty, has been a topic of discussion amongst not only those in a related profession, but to the public as well. Very few people are sentenced to die for their crimes and even fewer are actually executed. Most people are either for or against the idea of capital punishment; there is little gray area. Although capital punishment is a very controversial topic, should it still be a practice or should the death penalty be put to death itself?

Capital punishment, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is “punishment by death: the practice of killing people as punishment for serious crimes”. The death penalty can be received in five different ways, chosen

That law hasn’t been supported entirely since the first practice. Abolitionists of the death penalty in colonial times, documented by Cesare Beccaria’s 1767 essay called On Crimes and Punishment. This impacted a lot of not only the colonies views but the worlds on capital punishment which first picked up a voice to the disagreement to the jurisdiction. Multiple signers of the Declaration of Independence, shortly after Beccaria’s article, attempted to reform their states death penalty laws. In the DPIC’s article it says “The first attempted reforms of the death penalty in the U.S. occurred when Thomas Jefferson introduced a bill to revise Virginia 's death penalty laws. The bill proposed that capital punishment be used only for the crimes of murder and treason.” Today’s most recent resistance to the penalty in 2016, Delaware’s supreme court ruled it to be unconstitutional and violating the sixth amendment. Therefore, there is good reason as to why one wrong doing shouldn’t allow

Movies alluding to death sentencings in kingdoms, where typically the subject gets their head taken off is what comes to most minds who aren’t educated on the topic. Although those receiving the death penalty may not have gotten their sentence by being humane, the state prides their practice in killing ethically and by choice. Recently, Nebraska voters restored capital punishment in the state. The most substantial main reasoning for the use of judicial murder practices include morality, cost and closure. The government aside from compassion for those effected by the convict, supports the penalty because of “cost of death vs. life in prison” according to Robert Evnen, Nebraskan for capital punishment attorney. He claims “… ‘cost studies’…” essentially reveal most murders take a life without parole which costs the government inmate finances whereas the penalty gives the offender no room for an appeal. Capital punishment puts an end to a life that deserves ending due to the choices made of ending an innocent person. In my opinion, looking at both sides as to why and why not the death penalty should be instated or abolished, I agree that it should be a constitutional law reinforced in every state, with each state continuing to define capital punishment as it chooses. Although it violates some of the constitutions laws in different ways, it saves the government