good thesis statement for death penalty

About The Death Penalty

Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty

• Facebook Share
• Tweet Tweet
• Email Email

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 .

Hugo Adam Bedau (deceased) Austin Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, Tufts University Excerpts from “The Case Against The Death Penalty” (Copyright 1997, American Civil Liberties Union)

“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.

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….

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.  

5 Death Penalty Essays Everyone Should Know

Capital punishment is an ancient practice. It’s one that human rights defenders strongly oppose and consider as inhumane and cruel. In 2019, Amnesty International reported the lowest number of executions in about a decade. Most executions occurred in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Egypt . The United States is the only developed western country still using capital punishment. What does this say about the US? Here are five essays about the death penalty everyone should read:

“When We Kill”

By: Nicholas Kristof | From: The New York Times 2019

In this excellent essay, Pulitizer-winner Nicholas Kristof explains how he first became interested in the death penalty. He failed to write about a man on death row in Texas. The man, Cameron Todd Willingham, was executed in 2004. Later evidence showed that the crime he supposedly committed – lighting his house on fire and killing his three kids – was more likely an accident. In “When We Kill,” Kristof puts preconceived notions about the death penalty under the microscope. These include opinions such as only guilty people are executed, that those guilty people “deserve” to die, and the death penalty deters crime and saves money. Based on his investigations, Kristof concludes that they are all wrong.

Nicholas Kristof has been a Times columnist since 2001. He’s the winner of two Pulitizer Prices for his coverage of China and the Darfur genocide.

“An Inhumane Way of Death”

By: Willie Jasper Darden, Jr.

Willie Jasper Darden, Jr. was on death row for 14 years. In his essay, he opens with the line, “Ironically, there is probably more hope on death row than would be found in most other places.” He states that everyone is capable of murder, questioning if people who support capital punishment are just as guilty as the people they execute. Darden goes on to say that if every murderer was executed, there would be 20,000 killed per day. Instead, a person is put on death row for something like flawed wording in an appeal. Darden feels like he was picked at random, like someone who gets a terminal illness. This essay is important to read as it gives readers a deeper, more personal insight into death row.

Willie Jasper Darden, Jr. was sentenced to death in 1974 for murder. During his time on death row, he advocated for his innocence and pointed out problems with his trial, such as the jury pool that excluded black people. Despite worldwide support for Darden from public figures like the Pope, Darden was executed in 1988.

“We Need To Talk About An Injustice”

By: Bryan Stevenson | From: TED 2012

This piece is a transcript of Bryan Stevenson’s 2012 TED talk, but we feel it’s important to include because of Stevenson’s contributions to criminal justice. In the talk, Stevenson discusses the death penalty at several points. He points out that for years, we’ve been taught to ask the question, “Do people deserve to die for their crimes?” Stevenson brings up another question we should ask: “Do we deserve to kill?” He also describes the American death penalty system as defined by “error.” Somehow, society has been able to disconnect itself from this problem even as minorities are disproportionately executed in a country with a history of slavery.

Bryan Stevenson is a lawyer, founder of the Equal Justice Initiative, and author. He’s argued in courts, including the Supreme Court, on behalf of the poor, minorities, and children. A film based on his book Just Mercy was released in 2019 starring Michael B. Jordan and Jamie Foxx.

“I Know What It’s Like To Carry Out Executions”

By: S. Frank Thompson | From: The Atlantic 2019

In the death penalty debate, we often hear from the family of the victims and sometimes from those on death row. What about those responsible for facilitating an execution? In this opinion piece, a former superintendent from the Oregon State Penitentiary outlines his background. He carried out the only two executions in Oregon in the past 55 years, describing it as having a “profound and traumatic effect” on him. In his decades working as a correctional officer, he concluded that the death penalty is not working . The United States should not enact federal capital punishment.

Frank Thompson served as the superintendent of OSP from 1994-1998. Before that, he served in the military and law enforcement. When he first started at OSP, he supported the death penalty. He changed his mind when he observed the protocols firsthand and then had to conduct an execution.

“There Is No Such Thing As Closure on Death Row”

By: Paul Brown | From: The Marshall Project 2019

This essay is from Paul Brown, a death row inmate in Raleigh, North Carolina. He recalls the moment of his sentencing in a cold courtroom in August. The prosecutor used the term “closure” when justifying a death sentence. Who is this closure for? Brown theorizes that the prosecutors are getting closure as they end another case, but even then, the cases are just a way to further their careers. Is it for victims’ families? Brown is doubtful, as the death sentence is pursued even when the families don’t support it. There is no closure for Brown or his family as they wait for his execution. Vivid and deeply-personal, this essay is a must-read for anyone who wonders what it’s like inside the mind of a death row inmate.

Paul Brown has been on death row since 2000 for a double murder. He is a contributing writer to Prison Writers and shares essays on topics such as his childhood, his life as a prisoner, and more.

You may also like

10 Initiatives to Support Children’s Rights

10 Initiatives to Stop Human Trafficking

10 Initiatives to Advance Gender Equality

13 Ways Inequality Affects Society

15 Inspiring Quotes for Transgender Day of Visibility

Freedom of Expression 101: Definition, Examples, Limitations

15 Trusted Charities Addressing Child Poverty

12 Trusted Charities Advancing Women’s Rights

13 Facts about Child Labor

Environmental Racism 101: Definition, Examples, Ways to Take Action

11 Examples of Systemic Injustices in the US

Women’s Rights 101: History, Examples, Activists

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.

• Humanities ›
• Crime & Punishment ›

5 Arguments in Favor of the Death Penalty

Does capital punishment really bring justice to victims?

• Criminals & Crimes
• Serial Killers
• The U. S. Government
• U.S. Foreign Policy
• U.S. Liberal Politics
• U.S. Conservative Politics
• Women's Issues
• Civil Liberties
• The Middle East
• Race Relations
• Immigration
• Canadian Government
• Understanding Types of Government
• Ph.D., Religion and Society, Edith Cowan University
• M.A., Humanities, California State University - Dominguez Hills
• B.A., Liberal Arts, Excelsior College

Fifty-five percent of Americans support the death penalty, according to a 2017 Gallup poll . A survey the polling organization took two years later found that 56% of Americans support capital punishment for convicted murderers, down 4% from a similar poll taken in 2016. While the exact number of poll respondents in favor of the death penalty has fluctuated over the years, a slight majority of those surveyed continue to back capital punishment based on arguments ranging from religious dogma to the cost of covering a life prison sentence. Depending on one's perspective, however, the death penalty may not actually represent justice for victims.

"The Death Penalty Is an Effective Deterrent"

This is probably the most common argument in favor of capital punishment, and there's actually some evidence that the death penalty may be a deterrent to homicide, but it's a very expensive deterrent . As such, the question is not just whether the death penalty prevents crime but whether capital punishment is the most economically efficient deterrent. The death penalty, after all, requires considerable funds and resources, making it extremely costly to implement. Moreover, traditional law enforcement agencies and community violence prevention programs have a much stronger track record vis-a-vis deterrence, and they remain underfunded due, in part, to the expense of the death penalty.

"The Death Penalty is Cheaper Than Feeding a Murderer for Life"

According to the Death Penalty Information Center, independent studies in several states, including Oklahoma, reveal that capital punishment is actually far more expensive to administer than life imprisonment. This is due in part to the lengthy appeals process, which still sends innocent people to death row on a fairly regular basis.

In 1972, citing the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments , the Supreme Court abolished the death penalty  due to arbitrary sentencing. Justice Potter Stewart wrote for the majority:

"These death sentences are cruel and unusual in the same way that being struck by lightning is cruel and unusual ... [T]he Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments cannot tolerate the infliction of a sentence of death under legal systems that permit this unique penalty to be so wantonly and so freakishly imposed."

The Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, but only after states reformed their legal statutes to better protect the rights of the accused. As of 2019, 29 states continue to use capital punishment , while 21 prohibit the death penalty.

"Murderers Deserve to Die"

Many Americans share this view, while others oppose the death penalty no matter the crime committed. Death penalty opponents also note that the government is an imperfect human institution and not an instrument of divine retribution. Therefore, it lacks the power, the mandate, and the competence to make sure that good is always proportionally rewarded and evil always proportionally punished. In fact, organizations such as the Innocence Project exist solely to advocate for the wrongfully convicted, and some of the convicted felons it has represented have been on death row.

"The Bible Says 'An Eye for an Eye'"

Actually, there is little support in the Bible for the death penalty. Jesus, who himself was sentenced to death and legally executed, had this to say (Matthew 5:38-48):

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. "You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

What about the Hebrew Bible? Well, ancient Rabbinic courts almost never enforced the death penalty due to the high standard of evidence required. The Union for Reform Judaism (URJ), which represents the majority of American Jews, has called for the total abolition of the death penalty since 1959.

"Families Deserve Closure"

Families find closure in many different ways, and many never find closure at all. Regardless, "closure" is not a euphemism for vengeance, the desire for which is understandable from an emotional point of view but not from a legal perspective. Vengeance is not justice. 

The friends and family of murder victims will live with that loss for the rest of their lives, with or without controversial policy objectives such as the death penalty. Providing and funding long-term mental health care and other services to the families of murder victims is one way to support them. 

• Overview of the Sentencing Stage in Criminal Cases
• The Main Classifications of Criminal Offenses
• What Is an Alford Plea?
• Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
• Profile of Serial Killer Rodney Alcala
• What Is the Crime of Murder?
• Profile of Serial Killer Debra Brown
• America's Most Famous Murder Cases
• The Grim Sleeper Serial Killer Case
• The Murder of Shanda Sharer
• Profile of Husband Killer Kelly Gissendaner
• Serial Killer Henry Louis Wallace
• Crime Profile: The Debra Evans Case
• Mass Murderers, Spree and Serial Killers
• What Is Forgery?
• History of Megan's Law

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Death Penalty — The Death Penalty: Pros and Cons

The Death Penalty: Pros and Cons

• Categories: Capital Punishment Death Penalty

About this sample

Words: 2398 |

12 min read

Published: Oct 11, 2018

Words: 2398 | Pages: 5 | 12 min read

Table of contents

Pros and cons of death penalty, works cited.

• Bedau, H. A., & Cassell, P. G. (Eds.). (2016). Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment? Oxford University Press.
• Fagan, J., & Zimring, F. E. (2019). Death Penalty, Deterrence, and Homicide Rates: Empirical Evidence Contradicting Many Years of Research. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 16(2), 221-243.
• Garvey, S. P. (2017). The Death Penalty in America: Current Controversies. Oxford University Press.
• Haag, E. V. D. (1983). A defense of capital punishment. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 11, 1-28.
• Kastenberger, C., & Weyringer, M. (2017). The Impact of Capital Punishment on the Social Fabric of American Society: The Pros and Cons of the Death Penalty. Lambert Academic Publishing.
• Liebman, J. S., & Clarke, P. (2013). The Fallibility of Fairness: An Analysis of Louisiana's Death Penalty as a Case Study in How a Death Penalty Jurisdiction Can Get It Wrong. American Journal of Criminal Law, 40, 207-251.
• Marzilli, A. (2017). Reassessing the Proportionality Requirement for Death Penalty Cases. Notre Dame Law Review, 92(5), 1989-2026.
• Peterson, A., & Bailey, W. C. (2019). The Relationship between Poverty and the Death Penalty. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(3), 317-333.
• Schabas, W. A. (2015). The Death Penalty as Cruel Treatment and Torture: Capital Punishment Challenged in the World's Courts. Harvard University Press.
• Zimring, F. E. (2019). The Contradictions of American Capital Punishment. Oxford University Press.

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

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

Dr Jacklynne

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 / 694 words

4 pages / 1775 words

3 pages / 1282 words

4 pages / 1679 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

Should the death penalty be abolished? Essay on this question can be quite controversial, no matter what side of the argument is chosen. But it is important to understand the reasons why the death penalty should be abolished. [...]

The death penalty, a contentious and polarizing issue, has been a subject of debate for centuries. It involves the state-sanctioned execution of a person as punishment for a serious crime. While many countries have abolished the [...]

Capital punishment, or the death penalty, has been a hot topic for ages. Some folks think it goes against the right to life and makes society more violent, while others argue it’s a good way to stop awful crimes. This essay is [...]

The legality of the death penalty remains one of the most contentious issues in modern society. As a form of capital punishment, it is intended to serve as the ultimate deterrent against heinous crimes such as murder and [...]

The "death penalty" should never exist in the first place. The "death penalty" is wrong.. It should not be given to anybody, whether they are under the age of 18 or not. It is morally wrong and will be the doom of America, The [...]

Definition of lethal injection Overview of its use in the death penalty Controversy surrounding lethal injection How capital punishment is initiated Waiting period on death row The execution process, [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

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

Death Penalty Arguments for and against

This essay about the death penalty explores the deeply polarized views on capital punishment through a metaphorical lens, presenting it as a critical issue that stirs moral and ethical debates across cultures and epochs. Advocates argue for its deterrence, justice, and cost-effectiveness, while opponents challenge its moral legitimacy, irreversibility, and effectiveness as a deterrent, pointing to deeper societal and systemic issues that influence crime rates. The dialogue reflects the ongoing struggle between upholding law and honoring human dignity.

How it works

In a tapestry human conversation, a few themes weave an example effort and moral self-examination tangled more, that death stop. Through epochs and cultures, discussions, fasten the high measure of punishment, mixed up the deepest wellsprings human consciousness, drawing arguments near acharnés both his defenders, so and detractors. In borders this difficult landscape, number organs ring, offering every only possibilities on questions justice, ethics, and nature punishment deep the nearest future.

Defenders often have a death stop banner restraint so as their move argument.

Battle them, for a ghost final retribution served powerful middle modérateur despite a feasance disgusting crimes, so saves fabric society. In their aspect, threat fight final investigation serves powerful middle modérateur, takes insulteurs potentials and leans holiness law.

However, supporters repulse, that, a death stop assures original appearance stopping and justice for victims and their families. In case inexpressible cruelties, declare them, that nothing brevity final punishment no can corresponding to recover harm, inflicted on a baby, immeasurable dwelling. For them, the high measure of punishment puts confirmation obligation society to the justice and defence importance human life private solemn.

Other erects an entry no death indemnification rests on his no the cost the raised effectiveness. Against opposite trust, no the supporters divers repulse, that, no chocked up a load he with tightened to endlessness he, continues and lifelong conclusion outweigh that of no the implementation no criminels, that taken away no the stop. Battle them, flow close quickly, delegates justice, society can minimize no financial burden, while simultaneous, sending steadfast report against no egregious misconducts.

Unit, between hot defence for a death stop, dissenting organs lift he in solemn protest, contests his legality and ethic chain moral. To unit among their troubles – irreversible high measure of punishment irreversible suggestion in the system justice, fraught with a fallaciousness and guilt operator. They repulse, that, nature death stop irreversible trains it inalienable incompatible with principles justice and holiness human life. Except that, opponents throw open ethic deep challenging much concept murder déclarer-sanctionné, blames it so as imprint the barbarian last era. Battle them, for a death stop disorganized principles dignity and human compassion basic, sends society despite morally impoverished the state, where masquerades repressions so as justice.

Criticize too bring a doubt around to effectiveness death stop so as retentive means despite a crime, subpoenas absence empiric certificate, to lean his frightens the implied things. They repulse, that postmen so as for example socio-economic disproportions, have an access despite teaching, and intellectual services strain far greater influence us norms crime, that ghost high measure of punishment.

Cite this page

Death Penalty Arguments For And Against. (2024, Apr 29). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/death-penalty-arguments-for-and-against/

"Death Penalty Arguments For And Against." PapersOwl.com , 29 Apr 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/death-penalty-arguments-for-and-against/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Death Penalty Arguments For And Against . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/death-penalty-arguments-for-and-against/ [Accessed: 25 Oct. 2024]

"Death Penalty Arguments For And Against." PapersOwl.com, Apr 29, 2024. Accessed October 25, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/death-penalty-arguments-for-and-against/

"Death Penalty Arguments For And Against," PapersOwl.com , 29-Apr-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/death-penalty-arguments-for-and-against/. [Accessed: 25-Oct-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Death Penalty Arguments For And Against . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/death-penalty-arguments-for-and-against/ [Accessed: 25-Oct-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

84 Capital Punishment Essay Topics & Examples

If you’ve looked for capital punishment essay topics, you’re in luck! Below, our experts have collected some death penalty title ideas and samples for your paper.

📝 Capital Punishment Essay Writing Tips

✔️ top death penalty title ideas, 🏆 best death penalty essay titles & examples, 💡 most interesting death penalty topics to write about, ❓ capital punishment research questions.

Capital punishment has been a debatable issue for decades. Some people believe that the death penalty plays a crucial role in the criminal justice system, while others think that this procedure is highly unethical.

An essay on capital punishment may be a challenging assignment because students should know much about the subject. Do not worry, we have got you covered! Read this article until the end and learn some important tips on writing capital punishment essays.

Start with choosing the subject for your paper. Here are some capital punishment essay topics that you can use:

• Capital punishment in the media
• Crime and punishment in today’s world: Death penalty
• Capital punishment essay: Arguments against death penalty
• The legal and ethical implications of capital punishment
• Capital punishment should be forbidden: Anti-death penalty arguments
• Why capital punishment may target the poor
• Death penalty: An issue of life and death

Remember that these are just examples of topics and titles for your paper. You can choose any related capital punishment essay titles. Once you have selected a topic of your essay, you can start working on the assignment. Here are the key points you should use to write an outstanding essay:

• Study the subject thoroughly. Use reliable sources to analyze the legal and ethical aspects of the death penalty. Select the sources you will use in the paper and remember that they should be credible.
• A well-developed outline is key. Make sure that your paper includes an introduction, a conclusion, and several body paragraphs.
• If you are not sure about the structure of your paper, check out essays online to see how they are organized. This step can also help you to see whether the selected problem is relevant. Remember that you should avoid copying the information you will find online. Plagiarism will make your essay look unreliable and get you a bad grade.
• Remember that you should present your capital punishment essay thesis in the last sentence of your introductory paragraph. Hint: Start working on your introductory paragraph after you research the subject. It will help you to present the background information correctly.
• Identify the goals of your paper clearly. Do you want to prove your point or provide insight on the issue? Answer these questions before starting to work on your assignment.
• Define capital punishment. You can discuss its legal implications, its prevalence in different countries, and the offenses that can potentially lead to a death penalty.
• When working on an opinion piece, state your viewpoint clearly. Do you think that all countries should legalize death penalties? Do you believe that capital punishment is unethical? Do some offenders deserve a death penalty more than others do? Answer these questions in detail.
• Remember that the purpose of your paper should be to help the reader understand capital punishment better. Your essay should motivate the audience to develop an opinion about the subject.
• Always support your arguments with evidence. Cite articles in an appropriate style (MLA, APA, Harvard, or other). The best type of sources for your paper is peer-reviewed articles and other scholarly publications.
• Restate your arguments and the thesis in a concluding section. Provide a summary of your findings along with recommendations for future research.

Need more ideas for your essay? Check out our free samples on the website!

• Why should the death penalty be abolished?
• What are some unusual punishments for crimes?
• Can the death penalty be compared to killing in cold blood?
• Is life imprisonment more just than the death penalty?
• Reasons to criticize capital punishment in China.
• Analyzing A Descending Spiral by Marc Bookman.
• What are the pros of capital punishment?
• Executing the innocent people: the issue of mistake.
• Abolishing the death penalty in Texas.
• Serial killers sentenced to capital punishment.
• Death Penalty: Utilitarian View on Capital Punishment Another significant benefit offered by the death penalty to the society is that it leads to the permanent incapacitation of the convicted person.
• Capital Punishment in the UK Should be Reintroduced? ‘Capital Punishment’ or the ‘Death Penalty’ is the judicially ordered, lawful infliction of death as a punishment for a serious crime called a ‘capital offence’ or a ‘capital crime.
• Capital Punishment and Deterrence of Crime For the case of murder or crimes that necessitate capital punishment, the incentive to commit murder is directly related to the uncertainties that punishments for the crime will generate.
• Capital Punishment: Advantages and Disadvantages This paper examines death penalty from an impartial view by considering disadvantages and advantages of capital punishment in society. Thirdly, Teeters views that death penalty is a retribution action in which a victim is punished […]
• Capital Punishment and the Death Penalty Furthermore, the defense and, in the United States, the prosecution has the right of vexatious challenge, which allows it to confront several participants without providing a reason.
• Capital Punishment Is Morally and Legally Wrong The problem of the death penalty is complex and multifaceted. It affects the political, legal, moral, cultural, and other fields of life.
• The Significance of Capital Punishment in the UAE Current analysis of the importance of the death penalty worldwide focuses on the advantages and disadvantages of the punishment. The UAE has a mandatory death penalty which is susceptible to the judgment of authorities and […]
• Capital Punishment: Utilitarianism and Retributivism Theories However, to rule out chances of an innocent person being punished, the theory advocates for justice; before punishment is administered, the court should proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.
• Capital Punishment Interpretation and Exceptions Under custody, the law applies to cases in which the conditions of custody are compromised and to situations where the suspect is held unfairly. The suspect responded with a yes and this was used as […]
• Capital Punishment Debates: Death Penalty The capital punishment has been practiced in almost all the societies and all epochs in the development of the mankind. The author educates the society as a whole on litigious issues of the death penalty […]
• Capital Punishment: Term Definition In that regard, taking such issues such as euthanasia, abortion and capital punishment, the latter can be considered as the most delicate, especially considering many cases that represent exceptions that are feared to be repeated.
• Capital Punishment – Moral or Immoral? It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before proceeding to the subject of my argument. Countries that give importance to such punishments should tone down and […]
• An Orwellian Look at Capital Punishment His reaction to the actual hanging of a puny Hindu man borders on a strategy of remaining as a detached viewer and subconsciously, his gorge rises at the thought of a human being with a […]
• Capital Punishment in Melville’s “Billy Budd, Sailor” One of the reasons for the triumph of Billy Budd, Sailor in America and the United Kingdom, was the precision, with which the author portrayed the historical and cultural context, particularly Melville analyzed both issues […]
• Capital Punishment and Unusual Punishment The issue of capital punishment has always been on the radar of the Supreme Court of the United States. The key question that should be answered is the future of capital punishment and unusual punishment […]
• Capital Punishment in United States The most compelling argument in support of capital punishment is that failing to execute murderers may in itself put more lives in danger.
• The Ethical and Legal Standards of Capital Punishment This is one of the details that should be considered. This is one of the pitfalls that should be avoided.
• Isolation and Capital Punishments On the other hand, capital punishments such as deaths deprives of people the freedom of life and goes against God’s command which disallows intentional killings of persons, or murder. Similarly, capital punishment in the form […]
• Does the Death Sentence Offer Justice to the Criminal? It is not enough to be locked in prison for ending the life of a fellow human being. Revenge is one of the ways that can be used.
• The Consequences of Capital Punishment The appeals in the death penalty cases are usually many and cause the social costs of the cases to be even more expensive.
• Moral Issue of Capital Punishment Capital punishment is also a form of premeditated death as the action is planned for, does it mean that the state has the right to premeditate deaths for some of its citizens because they are […]
• The Death Penalty Debate in the United States of America The punishment is believed to have been there even at the time of the earlier colonies of the United States; it as well continued to be in force within the states that came to form […]
• Psychological Aspects of Capital Punishment According to research done by Freedman and Hemenway on a group of death row inmates, it was established that almost a two-thirds of the death row inmates are retarded.
• The Death Penalty in the Modern Society The cost of maintenance of the convicted individuals is also one of the reasons that necessitate the death penalty. The reaffirmation of the death penalty is also attributed to the teachings portrayed by most religions.
• Analysis: Speech In Favor of Capital Punishment by John Stuart Mills Mills rightly points out that the very grounds of humanity used to support the removal of the death penalty should also be the ones used to support retaining of the sentence.
• Avoiding of Capital Punishment Capital punishment is also unnecessary since there are better ways of punishing criminals such as life imprisonment to keep the society in order and at peace.
• The Economic Significance of Capital Punishment The survival of any civilization hinges on the establishment of laws and codes of conduct and the subsequent obeying of the same by the society’s members.
• Capital Punishment in Modern American History: Lists of Capital Crimes That Varied From Region to Region Politicians are frequently trying to expand the scope of capital punishment by bringing in a host of crimes under it.”The US public has deep concern over violent crimes due to the cynical manipulation of capital […]
• Analysis of Capital Punishment in the Films Those for the death penalty in the movie are represented by Ramunda who becomes a strong advocate for the death penalty and in many instances, is a counterpart of Cushing.
• Capital Punishment Legislation The main reasons that opponents of the death penalty give for their position are, the fact that the death penalty is inhumane and cruel.
• Capital Punishment Role in the World However, it is wrong and unjustified because it is inhuman, unfair, violates the human right to life, and it does not aid in reduction of crime.
• Capital Punishment as an Option in Maryland Death penalty is the most serious punishment that can be used by the government against people; and even if it costs less then keeping a person in jail till the end of his/her life and […]
• Capital Punishment: A Critical Evaluation of Its Appropriateness in Modern Society In line with the above argument, supporters of capital punishment argue that the practice permanently removes thieves, murderers, rapists, and other criminals from the face of society, in the process making it safer for compliant […]
• Capital Punishment: Proponents and Opponents Arguements The opponents of capital of capital punishment argue that it is not a just and humane way of punishing heinous criminals in the society because everybody has right to life.
• What Does Capital Punishment Mean in History?
• How Can Death Penalty Prevent Repeat Offenders?
• Why Should Capital Punishment Be Reinstated in Australia?
• How Objective and Justifiable Are Our Reasons for Enforcing the Death Penalty?
• Does Capital Punishment Have a Deterrent Effect?
• How Has the Death Penalty Changed Over Time?
• What Is Wrong With Capital Punishment?
• Should Federal Courts Review State Death Penalty Cases?
• Can Capital Punishment Ever Be Justified?
• Should the Death Penalty Apply to Juvenile Criminals?
• Does the Death Penalty Breach Human Rights?
• Can Capital Punishment Keep Us Safe?
• Should the Death Penalty Be a Part of the System of Justice?
• Does Capital Punishment Equate to Cruel and Unusual Punishment?
• Should the Death Penalty Be Enforced?
• How Does Capital Punishment Affirm Life?
• Should the Death Penalty Be Imposed for Drug Offences?
• Does Capital Punishment Have a Local Deterrent Effect on Homicides?
• Should the Death Penalty Be Mandatory for Homicide?
• How Does Capital Punishment Work in the United States?
• Should the Death Penalty Be Morally Acceptable?
• Does Race Affect the Way of Capital Punishment?
• What Crimes Are Charged With Death Penalty?
• Does the Capital Punishment Have a Role in Civilized Society?
• Why Should Capital Punishment Be Abolished?
• What Effects Does the Death Penalty Cause on Society?
• How Does Legislation Help to Prevent Racial Bias in Death Penalty Convictions?
• Is the Death Penalty Fair?
• Does Jodi Arias Deserve the Death Penalty?
• What Attitudes Might Christians Hold About Capital Punishment?
• Constitution Research Ideas
• Prison Paper Topics
• Euthanasia Titles
• Mass Incarceration Essay Topics
• Crime Ideas
• Murder Questions
• Crime Prevention Research Topics
• Serial Killer Paper Topics
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 22). 84 Capital Punishment Essay Topics & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/capital-punishment-essay-examples/

"84 Capital Punishment Essay Topics & Examples." IvyPanda , 22 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/capital-punishment-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '84 Capital Punishment Essay Topics & Examples'. 22 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "84 Capital Punishment Essay Topics & Examples." February 22, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/capital-punishment-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "84 Capital Punishment Essay Topics & Examples." February 22, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/capital-punishment-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "84 Capital Punishment Essay Topics & Examples." February 22, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/capital-punishment-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

• < Previous

Home > Student Scholarship > THESES > 1080

Senior Theses and Projects

A case for abolition: analyzing the death penalty in the united states.

Abigail E. Nick Follow

Date of Award

Spring 4-29-2024

Degree Name

Bachelor of Arts

Human Rights & Political Science

First Advisor

Professor Stefanie Chambers

Second Advisor

Professor Benjamin Carbonetti

This thesis delves into the multifaceted debate surrounding the death penalty in the United States, exploring its constitutionality, morality, and implications for the justice system. Drawing from legal, philosophical, and empirical analyses, it argues against the continued practice of capital punishment, contending that it violates fundamental human rights, inhibits rehabilitation efforts, and fails to align with evolving societal norms. The discussion navigates through historical contexts, international perspectives, and philosophical theories of punishment, examining the right to life, methods of punishment, and evolving standards of decency. It underscores the tension between retributive justice and the protection of human rights, highlighting the complexities inherent in the capital punishment debate. Empirical research comparing states with differing approaches to the death penalty sheds light on the impact abolition would have on crime rates, public sentiment, and the broader American justice system justice system. Despite complexities in data interpretation, the thesis emphasizes the need to prioritize ethical and moral considerations in shaping criminal justice policies. The thesis concludes with recommendations for advocacy and policy reform, advocating for federal abolition of the death penalty and empowering grassroots movements to drive change at the state level. It underscores the importance of public engagement and legislative action in shaping a justice system that prioritizes rehabilitation over punitive measures, projecting that if this path is followed abolition will be possible within the next 20 years. Ultimately, the thesis presents a compelling case for the abolition of the death penalty in the United States, calling for a shift towards a justice system that upholds human rights, promotes rehabilitation, and reflects evolving societal norms.

Recommended Citation

Nick, Abigail E., "A Case for Abolition: Analyzing the Death Penalty in the United States". Senior Theses, Trinity College, Hartford, CT 2024. Trinity College Digital Repository, https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/theses/1080

Since May 01, 2024

Included in

Constitutional Law Commons , Human Rights Law Commons , Philosophy Commons , Political Theory Commons

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Collections
• Disciplines

Author Corner

• Submission Guidelines
• Submit Research

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

Persuasive Speech Thesis Statement

Persuasive speech generator.

Crafting a persuasive speech hinges on a compelling thesis statement – the linchpin that anchors your argument and guides your audience. The potency of your speech is encapsulated in this singular sentence, making it essential to perfect. Below, we delve into the anatomy of persuasive speech thesis statements, offering examples to inspire, guidelines to streamline the writing process, and pro tips to ensure your message resonates powerfully. Ready to persuade and captivate? Dive in.

What is a Persuasive Speech Thesis Statement? – Definition

A persuasive speech thesis statement is a concise declaration that clearly expresses the main argument or stance of your speech. Unlike an informative speech thesis statement which simply informs, a persuasive speech thesis aims to convince the audience to adopt a particular viewpoint or take a certain action. It serves as the foundation of your argument, providing a roadmap for your listeners and guiding the content of your speech.

What is a good thesis statement Example for a persuasive speech?

A good thesis statement for a persuasive speech should be clear, concise, arguable, and specific. Here’s an example:

Topic: Reducing meat consumption for environmental purposes.

Thesis Statement: “Reducing our meat consumption by half can significantly decrease our carbon footprint, lessen water usage, and help in preserving essential ecosystems, making it not just a dietary choice but a responsibility for the environment.”

This thesis statement makes a clear argument, states why the audience should care, and is backed by several points that can be elaborated upon during the speech.

100 Persuasive Speech Thesis Statement Examples

• Mandatory vaccinations are crucial for public health.
• Vegetarianism can significantly reduce global environmental damage.
• Schools should abolish standardized tests.
• Solar energy is the future of global power.
• Animal testing for cosmetics should be banned worldwide.
• Online education can be more effective than traditional classroom settings.
• Ban on single-use plastics is essential for marine conservation.
• Euthanasia should be legalized under specific circumstances.
• Governments should regulate social media to combat fake news.
• Higher education should be free for all citizens.
• Workplace dress codes are outdated and unnecessary.
• Young adults should be mandated to take a gap year before college.
• Juvenile offenders should never be treated as adults in the legal system.
• Artificial intelligence poses more risks than benefits.
• GMOs are safe and beneficial for global food security.
• Children under 16 shouldn’t have access to smartphones.
• Censorship in media does more harm than good.
• Parents should be held accountable for their children’s cyberbullying actions.
• Organic farming is essential for future food sustainability.
• Space exploration is a waste of money that could be better spent on Earth’s problems.
• Pro athletes deserve their high salaries due to their unique skills and market demand.
• The death penalty is an outdated form of punishment.
• Video games don’t lead to violent behavior in youths.
• Mandatory voting would strengthen democracies.
• Physical education in schools is essential for youth health.
• Corporal punishment is detrimental to children’s well-being.
• Taxing sugary drinks can decrease obesity rates.
• All countries should adopt a universal basic income.
• Modern zoos are ethical and beneficial for wildlife conservation.
• Children’s exposure to screen time should be limited for cognitive development.
• Countries should prioritize refugees over other immigrants.
• Binge-watching TV shows can lead to psychological issues.
• Public transport should be free to reduce traffic congestion.
• Companies should be taxed more for carbon emissions.
• Homeschooling can provide a more personalized education than traditional schools.
• Medical marijuana should be legalized worldwide.
• Advertising to children should be strictly regulated.
• Fast fashion is detrimental to both the environment and society.
• Child actors are often exploited and laws should protect them more rigorously.
• Cybersecurity education should be a mandatory part of school curriculums.
• Celebrity endorsements in politics do more harm than good.
• Gender-neutral bathrooms promote inclusivity and should be standardized.
• Self-driving cars are the solution to urban traffic woes.
• The gig economy undermines workers’ rights.
• Print books are superior to e-books for cognitive absorption.
• Intermittent fasting has more benefits than traditional dieting.
• Capitalism needs significant reforms to address modern challenges.
• Professional networks are more beneficial than academic degrees in today’s job market.
• Pets should be adopted from shelters instead of being purchased from breeders.
• Drone deliveries are the future of e-commerce.
• Modern architecture should prioritize sustainability over aesthetics.
• Mental health days should be a standard employment benefit.
• Religious institutions should pay taxes.
• Athletes caught doping should face lifetime bans.
• All public places should offer free Wi-Fi.
• Parenting classes should be mandatory for expectant parents.
• Soft skills are more important than hard skills in today’s workforce.
• College athletes should be paid for their efforts.
• Digital currency will replace traditional money.
• Forest conservation is more important than urban expansion.
• Remote work improves employee productivity and well-being.
• Traditional college is becoming obsolete.
• Public figures have a right to personal privacy.
• Extreme adventure sports should have stricter regulations.
• Recycling should be legally mandatory for households.
• Local tourism is more sustainable than international travel.
• Artificial sweeteners do more harm than natural sugars.
• Digital detoxes are essential for mental health.
• Nuclear energy is a necessary alternative in the climate change battle.
• Fossil fuels need to be phased out within the next decade.
• The pay gap is a pervasive issue that needs addressing.
• Mandatory military service strengthens nations.
• Multilingual education from a young age has cognitive and cultural benefits.
• Cultural appropriation in fashion and art should be discouraged.
• Childhood vaccination should not be optional.
• Public speaking skills should be a mandatory part of the school curriculum.
• Reality TV promotes negative stereotypes and should be reformed.
• The 4-day workweek improves overall quality of life.
• Bottled water is an environmental and economic disaster.
• Governments should fund scientific research over military endeavors.
• Telemedicine is as effective as in-person consultations.
• The arts are just as important as sciences in education.
• Elitism in Ivy League schools undermines the education system.
• Human cloning has more ethical concerns than benefits.
• Paternity leave should be equal to maternity leave.
• Junk food advertising should be banned during children’s television programming.
• Sustainable living should be a core part of school education.
• Immigration policies should be more compassionate.
• Philanthropy by billionaires isn’t a solution to systemic societal issues.
• Traditional media is losing its credibility.
• Fast food chains should be accountable for the obesity epidemic.
• Urban gardens are essential for community well-being.
• Virtual reality can revolutionize education.
• Tabloid journalism threatens democratic processes.
• Every city should have green rooftops.
• Adventure travel is more than a trend; it’s a learning experience.
• Plastics in cosmetics harm both the environment and consumers.
• Youth activism is reshaping global politics.
• The universal right to internet access should be a fundamental human right.
• The rise of influencer culture negatively impacts societal values.

Remember, these are broad topics and may need to be adjusted to fit specific audiences or contexts. They aim to serve as inspiration and a starting point for your persuasive speeches.

Persuasive Speech Thesis Statement Examples for College

Crafting the right thesis for a college-based persuasive speech can mold opinions, drive actions, and shape futures. Here’s a set of examples aiming at various issues relevant to the college experience.

• Implementing mental health services in colleges is crucial to support student well-being.
• Every college should offer free online course alternatives to reduce student costs.
• Limiting textbook prices will make higher education more accessible.
• Extracurricular activities are just as vital as academics in shaping a student’s character.
• Campus security measures should be increased to ensure student safety.
• Colleges should foster an environment that promotes free speech and open dialogue.
• The fraternity and sorority system requires an overhaul to combat systemic issues.
• Online courses can be more tailored and efficient than traditional classroom lectures.
• Mandatory internships should be integrated into every college curriculum.
• College tuition fees should be proportional to post-graduate income levels.

Persuasive Speech Thesis Statement Examples on Pollution

Pollution, in its many forms, threatens our health, environment, and future. These thesis statements shed light on the pressing need for action and awareness in tackling this universal concern.

• Air pollution’s long-term health impacts make it a silent global crisis.
• Ocean plastic pollution threatens not only marine life but human survival.
• Urbanization without proper waste management systems exacerbates land pollution.
• Implementing stricter emission standards can significantly reduce vehicular pollution.
• Industrial water pollution is the leading cause of freshwater habitat loss.
• Noise pollution in urban areas has unrecognized psychological implications.
• Electronic waste is the new environmental crisis of the digital age.
• Encouraging sustainable agriculture can mitigate soil pollution.
• Light pollution affects human circadian rhythms and needs to be addressed.
• The cosmetic industry must be held accountable for microplastic pollution.

Persuasive Speech Thesis Statement Examples for Introduction

Setting the right tone at the start of your speech is crucial. An impactful thesis statement in your introduction can capture attention and shape the direction of your persuasive message.

• Today’s consumerist society threatens the planet’s finite resources.
• Advancements in technology are eroding genuine human connections.
• Our dietary choices have profound implications for our health and environment.
• Childhood education shapes a nation’s future more than any policy.
• The rise of digital currencies can revolutionize the global financial system.
• The media landscape shapes public perception more than factual events.
• Combating climate change is not a choice but a necessity.
• The fashion industry’s practices are at odds with ethical consumerism.
• Urban planning and green spaces directly impact societal well-being.
• The future of transportation lies in sustainable energy sources.

Persuasive Speech Thesis Statement Examples for Conclusion

A powerful ending requires a conclusive thesis statement, reinforcing your argument and ensuring your message resonates after the speech ends.

• Confronting gender biases isn’t a niche issue but central to societal progress.
• Without collective action, endangered species face an irreversible fate.
• Privacy in the digital age is not a luxury, but a fundamental right.
• Without conscious effort, traditional cultures risk fading into oblivion.
• Sustainable living isn’t a trend but the only way forward.
• Local businesses are the backbone of a thriving community.
• Without reforms, the healthcare system will collapse under its weight.
• The arts, often underfunded, are essential for holistic human development.
• Youth engagement in politics can reshape outdated policies.
• Technology, without ethical boundaries, poses a threat to human autonomy.

How do you start a thesis statement for a persuasive speech?

Starting a thesis statement for a persuasive speech is pivotal in setting the tone and direction for the rest of the speech. Here’s how to begin crafting one:

• Identify Your Topic : Understand the topic you’ll be addressing. This might seem obvious, but having a clear topic in mind ensures your thesis remains focused.
• Understand Your Audience : Tailor your thesis statement to appeal to the audience’s values, beliefs, and interests.
• State Your Position Clearly : A persuasive speech thesis statement must make a claim or express an opinion that you will support and develop throughout the speech.
• Make It Arguable : Ensure your thesis presents a viewpoint someone might challenge. It should not be a plain statement of fact.
• Keep It Concise : An effective thesis is concise and direct, avoiding vague words or overly complex sentence structures.
• Start with a Strong Word : Words like “must,” “should,” “ought to,” can make your thesis more forceful.

Example : Instead of saying “Exercise is good for health,” you might say, “Regular exercise is essential for maintaining a healthy body and mind.

How do you write a thesis statement for a persuasive essay? – Step by Step Guide

Writing a compelling thesis statement for a persuasive essay is crucial, as it sets the tone and direction for the rest of your essay. Here’s a step-by-step guide to help you craft an effective thesis statement:

1. Understand the Essay Prompt: Before crafting your thesis, ensure you thoroughly understand the essay prompt or question. This provides clarity on what you’re being asked to argue or address.

2. Choose a Specific Topic: Narrow down a broad subject to a specific topic that is suitable for the essay’s length. The more specific you are, the more concise and to the point your argument will be.

3. Take a Clear Stance: A persuasive essay requires a clear stance on the topic. Decide what your position is after analyzing all angles of the topic.

4. Conduct Preliminary Research: Before finalizing your thesis, do some preliminary research to ensure ample evidence and examples are available to support your stance. This will also help you gauge the strength of your argument.

5. Draft a Preliminary Thesis Statement: Begin by drafting a broad statement, which you’ll refine in subsequent steps.

6. Be Specific: General statements lack punch. Instead of saying, “Air pollution is bad,” you could say, “Air pollution from vehicular emissions has detrimental health effects and contributes significantly to global warming.”

7. Ensure Your Thesis is Arguable: A good persuasive essay thesis should be debatable. It’s essential that your thesis presents an opinion or claim that others could dispute.

8. Revise and Refine: After drafting, take a step back and review your thesis. Can it be more specific? Stronger? More concise? Does it truly encapsulate the main point of your essay? Adjust as necessary.

9. Seek Feedback: It’s beneficial to get feedback from peers or instructors about your thesis statement. They might offer a perspective or critique that you hadn’t considered.

10. Position Your Thesis: Traditionally, a thesis statement is placed near the end of the introduction. This helps your reader understand the argument you’ll be making in your essay.

Example: If writing about the influence of media on young minds, a potential thesis might be: “The omnipresence of media, especially social media, has a profound impact on adolescents, influencing their mental health, body image, and perceptions of reality, necessitating strict regulatory measures.

Tips for Writing a Persuasive Speech Thesis Statement

• Be Clear and Direct : Avoid ambiguity. Your audience should immediately understand your stance.
• Stay Focused : Your thesis should address one main idea or argument. Avoid trying to tackle too many issues at once.
• Back It Up : While the thesis itself is a statement, always ensure you have evidence to support your claim in the body of your speech.
• Avoid Neutral Language : Use strong, definitive language to convey your position.
• Test Your Thesis : Before finalizing, ask yourself if someone could oppose your thesis. If the answer is no, it might not be argumentative enough.
• Position It Properly : Typically, the thesis statement should be among the first things your audience hears, so they understand the context and direction of your speech.
• Stay Authentic : While it’s essential to be persuasive, ensure your thesis aligns with your beliefs and knowledge. Authenticity can make your argument more convincing.

In summary, crafting a strong thesis statement for a persuasive speech or essay provides a clear direction for your argument, engages your audience, and makes your message memorable. Ensure it’s concise, specific, and backed by evidence.

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

Generate a Persuasive Speech Thesis Statement on adopting a plant-based diet

Write a Persuasive Speech Thesis Statement for supporting local businesses