Why Abolish The Death Penalty

The death penalty has had a lot of controversy surrounding it for many, many years. Many people believe it should be outlawed and that and falls under cruel and unusual punishment, which would be against the Constitution. These people may also believe that the costs of using the death penalty outweigh the costs of imprisonment for life. However, many others support the use of the death penalty, under certain terms.

I myself find that the facts supporting to abolish the death penalty outweigh any reason to continue to uphold it. With a broken judicial system leading to death row. It is littered with racial and economic hardships inadequacies and flaws innocent people are being sentenced to death court systems bottlenecked with motions and procedures that only prolong the impending doom. Many People argue that the worst of the worst of the worst should be put to death and that there is no reason to hold out with hopes that they will change. Other argue that the we must keep the death penalty for a deterrent.

However, the death penalty reduces overcrowding, provides closure for victim’s family, and is true justice. Capital punishment can deal with overpopulated prisons in the United States. Prison overcrowding is one of the contributing factors to poor prison conditions. Its consequences can prevent prisons from fulfilling their functions as well (penalreform.org). For example, it can increase sickness among the inmates and prison guards.

When the final sentence is being decided, the system they use to determine, is very flawed. The sentence is determined not by the gravity of the crime, but depending heavily on the person’s lawyer. Another thing that is used against the defendant, is race. As sad as using race to determine when someone else’s life is going to end sounds, officials really do that. On top of the corrupted method officials use, the people being sent to death sentence have an extremely high risk of experiencing intense pain during the execution.

“There is no doubt that the supporters of the death penalty have more in common with murders then its opponents” (Gourmot). The death penalty is an extremely controversial subject in today 's society. The idea of taking another person 's life is completely inhuman, even if it is a life of a soulless murderer or criminal in general. The overall concept of the death penalty is easy to understand, but all the emotional aspects are extremely complex. I have a difficult time understanding the hypocritical mindset of the death penalty, the idea of taking a criminal 's life because they may have taken someone else 's. Why kill people that killed people to display that killing is wrong.

Furthermore, who would think of the death penalty while they are doing the crime? When the murderer is killing their victim they aren't entertaining the idea of "I should not kill this person because I will face the death penalty". They are not scared of the consequences whilst they are murdering. In the year 2014, according to the website http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/, the murder rate in death penalty states is 4.75, however, the murder rate in non-death penalty is 3.70; so the penalty is not ending the number of murderers. It has not been proven clearly that the death penalty has aid the reduction of crimes.

Murderers don’t always think about the range of punishments for murdering someone when they commit a crime. The law needs to inject fear in the minds of the criminals or murderers and discourage them from actually committing crime. We don’t just need something for the sake of it, we need something that actually deters crime and death penalty really isn’t one of them. Death penalty has been in practice for a very long time, even way back in history when people were not as developed as today and this itself shows that death penalty is not an effective deterrent for crime because the number of crimes and criminals in jails have increased immensely in today’s

The death penalty has killed countless amounts of people and has negatively impacted so many more. So why hasn’t it, like other killers, been sentenced to death for the heinous crimes it has committed. Stated by the international commission “Public support for the death penalty does not mean that taking away the life of a human being is right. There is undisputed historical precedence where gross human rights violations had had the support of a majority of the people, but which were condemned later on.” People may want to free from crime and horror but taking a life is never the way to go.

The death penalty, Britain influenced American use of the death penalty more than any other country. When the Europeans were immigrating to America, they brought with them the death penalty. The first ever recorded execution in American was captain George Kendall in Jamestown, Virginia in 1608. Ever since then America has had the death penalty by law, but is still legal in 33 states and illegal in 18 states. The death penalty should be illegal in every state because it puts innocent people at risk, does not have any effect on crime rates, and life imprisonment is cheaper than the death penalty.

Closing statement: The debate about gun control is inappropriate, because it does not go far enough. Only a completely ban of privately owned firearms can help drastically reduce the number of firearms related deaths and save countless lives. Without a doubt, the proposition of a complete ban of firearms will be met with fierce opposition. Critics will point at their eagerness to hunt, shoot for recreational purposes, and use guns for self-defense. However, recreational hunting and target practice are hardly basic rights that must be preserved at all costs.

They should be no reason for anyone being hot headed,

The death penalty goes far back into history, across many different civilizations, and many different cultures. It has been around since the beginnings of colonial America, and was very different compared to todays standards. “In colonial America, criminals

These conclusions are not supported by the available data. Justice Stevens has also argued that the risk of error in capital cases may be greater than in other cases because the facts are often so disturbing that the interest in making sure the crime does not go unpunished may overcome residual doubt concerning the identity of the offender. The same could be said of any criminal penalty, including life without parole; there is no proof that in this regard the death penalty is distinctive. He also states: I have relied on my own experience in reaching the conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty" is

The ACLU believes that the “state shouldn’t give itself the right to kill human beings especially when it kills with premeditation.” (ACLU The case against the death penalty). In a research study by Richard Dreser from the Death Penalty Information Center (1995). Many chiefs of police and attorneys believed that capital punishment wasn’t an effective crime deterrent. Willie Williams a police chief from Los Angles, California said “I am not convinced that capital punishment in and of itself is a deterrent to crime, because people do not think about the death penalty before they commit a violent crime.”

Perhaps his essay and argument was more difficult to follow. It is common sense that it is wrong to kill. His reading is not convincing to why it is that the unborn child is being robbed of its future through abortion. While this is true for the most part it is just too broad. His strongest point is simply that killing is not right and it does rob the victim of their future.