The death penalty is an ineffective method of punishment for criminals because it is not ethical, it does not stop crime, and innocents could be killed. Firstly and most obviously, the death penalty is wrong and unethical. Lethal injection is the type of punishment most used today, goes against the constitution, and is incredibly cruel. While it is perhaps less cruel than older forms of execution, such as the electric chair, it is still very unconstitutional. In an article about lethal injection, the author states,“The current use of lethal injections constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, which is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution” (Lethal Injection).
Not only has the death penalty proven to be constitutional, cost effective, ethically correct deterrent of future murders, but it also is a punishment that fits the crime. First of all, the abolitionists argue that the death penalty is actually illegal or unconstitutional (Eckholm & Schwartz, 2014) because it violates the 8th Amendment’s ban against cruel and unusual punishments. But in fact, the Constitution sanctions the death penalty in several contexts. The 5th Amendment states that “no one shall deprive you of your life, unless you are properly judged and convicted in a due process of law” (Cornell University, n.d). This means that the State actually has the right to put you up for capital punishment after you have been properly sent to trial.
They reported that in the case Furman v Georgia (1972) it was ruled that, “the Court invalidated existing death penalty laws because they constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment” (par. 3). Later on in the case Gregg v Georgia (1976) the Supreme court ruled that, “The Court held the death penalty was not per se unconstitutional as it could serve the social purposes of retribution and deterrence” (par. 5). As further rulings go on, it is eventually determined that with careful statues put in place that limits the abilities of the jury to rule capital punishment, the death penalty is officially said to not be unconstitutional.
In the end, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (6-3), in favor of Mapp, that the evidence collected is deemed unconstitutional. The Supreme Court stated the proof could not be used against the person in state courts and that Dollree Mapp could not be convicted. Mapp was released and her case helped to strengthen the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The matter also limited police power. I agree with the final outcome of the case.
The Court noted, "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." For example, although the law punished actions, such as flag burning, that might arouse anger in others, it specifically exempted from prosecution actions that were respectful of venerated objects, e.g., burning and burying a worn-out flag. The majority said that the government could not discriminate in this manner based solely upon what message was communicated. Finally, the Court concluded that Texas' interest in preventing breaches of the peace did not support Johnson's conviction because the conduct at issue did not threaten to disturb the peace. Moreover, Texas' interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity did not justify Johnson's criminal conviction for engaging in political
After using the Durham Rule unhappily for 18 years, Judge Bazelon ended its use in federal courts. The court replaced it with a modification of the 1962 draft of the Model Penal Code rule formulated by the American Law Institute, which is now known as the ALI/Brawner Rule. This rule states, “a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law”. Also, this rule states that the terms “mental disease or defect” do not include an abnormality manifested by only repeated criminal or antisocial conduct. This was instituted to disallow insanity for psychopaths/sociopaths who habitually violate the law.
Of the eight possible topics in which I was presented to choose from, I have chosen to consider the topic that states: The death penalty is immoral, and no one who has been successfully taken into custody and imprisoned should ever then be executed. The reason I chose this topic is because I am neutral on the subject and have no bias towards either side. However, the fact that I am neutral on the subject will help me represent both sides equally and give a fair and honest argument from each angle. The reason I chose this topic over the other options would be because I have never really invested much time or thought into how ethical/unethical the death penalty actually is. This presents an opportunity for me to think critically about this topic, and therefore, form my own opinion on whether or not I agree/disagree with the statement provided.
This adds on to be a negative incentive for criminals as they have statistical proof that shows them how ineffective this punishment really is. Capital punishment has no effect on criminals to quit to committing crimes because of how little of an effect this extreme punishment really is towards the decline in crime. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun said in 1994, "I feel morally and intellectually obligated simply to concede
The Eighth Amendment is all about punishment. In the Amendment it states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”, as well as allowing the Death Penalty. I believe this Amendment is right. Because of the fact that cruel and unusual punishment wouldn’t be fun, I believe the Death Penalty should be legal, and excessive fines would be crushing to our economy. Cruel and unusual punishment would not be fun.
“Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall the death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it.” The decision to abolish the death penalty was influenced by four main arguments expressed in the debates of the Constitutional Commission: firstly, that capital punishment, even if not carried out, was inhuman because it traumatizes not only the prisoner but also his family; secondly, that there was no solid evidence to show that the death penalty had acted as an effective deterrent against the commission of serious crimes; thirdly, that life was a divine gift and as such should not be put in the hands of a human judge; and fourthly that modern penal systems favored reformative rather that vindictive punishment. The Philippines became the first Asian country to abolish the death penalty for all