opinion essay death penalty

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Is Use of the Death Penalty Ever Moral?

Readers point to flaws in the justice and mental health systems, and one calls it “barbaric.”

To the Editor:

Re “ If Not the Parkland Shooter, Who Is the Death Penalty For? ,” by Robert Blecker (Opinion guest essay, Oct. 29):

I agree with much of what Mr. Blecker writes, and would summarize it by saying that some acts, like the Parkland, Uvalde or Sandy Hook shootings, are so heinous that people who commit them have forfeited their right to live. And the state, on behalf of society, has the right to take that life.

And yet, I’m against the death penalty other than in a perfect legal system that allows for no unfairness in administering what is, essentially, the ultimate penalty, which can never be undone.

Our legal system, though, permits such unfairness when, for example, it executes people who were accomplices while the actual killer gets life. But worst of all, innocent people are sometimes, if rarely, sentenced to death and executed — which is morally wrong and a stain on the soul of the justice system.

Unless and until we can ensure that these serious miscarriages of justice are eliminated, we will sadly have to allow some killers who deserve death to spend the rest of their lives in prison. A just society demands no less.

Joseph C. Kaplan Teaneck, N.J.

It is astonishing that Robert Blecker, a law professor who says he has spent “three decades documenting daily life on death rows and inside maximum security prisons,” could actually understand so little about prison life. Only a dedicated fantasist could believe that the men and women imprisoned there “are enjoying” their “new normal of daily life.”

A study of the men on U.S. death rows found that in the period 1976 to 1999, the rate of suicide was about five times the rate of suicide in the U.S. as a whole. And state prisoners were more likely to die of cancer and liver disease “and more than twice as likely to die from homicide” than the outside U.S. population, according to a Department of Justice report . Does Mr. Blecker suggest that conditions for the condemned have improved?

His use of the term “worst of the worst,” a concept invented to masquerade the reality of the abused, neglected and mentally ill women and men who populate our death rows, has to be left behind if there is ever going to be a meaningful discussion of the death penalty.

Thoughtful people understand that it was not “free will” that produced Nikolas Cruz’s monstrous crimes but a severely damaged mind. To argue that retribution will “restore a moral balance” is ethical bankruptcy. State killing is immoral. Two immoral acts do not create a moral balance.

Mike Farrell Sacramento The writer is president of Death Penalty Focus.

Timothy McVeigh, who killed 168 people in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing , deserved the death penalty and got it.

Nancy Keenan-Rich Poughkeepsie, N.Y.

In endorsing capital punishment for the “worst of the worst criminals,” and in suggesting that “retributive justice” is a means of acknowledging the full humanity and free will of a person convicted of aggravated murder, Robert Blecker fails to understand that an essential part of Nikolas Cruz’s humanity was destroyed before he was born.

Mr. Cruz suffers from fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which has profound consequences on brain development, impulse control, cognitive capacity and behavior.

Mr. Blecker’s method requires him to put himself in the shoes of the victims, but he fails in his effort at creating a framework for true sentencing justice because he appears incapable of putting himself in the shoes of the brain-damaged Mr. Cruz, whose full humanity was broken in a way that made his will much less than free.

Mercy is part of the human condition and is the ultimate acknowledgment of human dignity.

Michael Iaria Bainbridge Island, Wash. The writer is a criminal defense attorney who handles capital cases and has represented clients with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

The headline asks, “If Not the Parkland Shooter, Who Is the Death Penalty For?” How about … nobody?

The death penalty has been convincingly shown to not be a deterrent to future criminals, nor does it do anything to bring a killer’s victims back to life. All it does is exact revenge while sometimes resulting in the execution of innocent people.

It’s understandable that a victim’s family might be so overcome by emotion that it favors the death penalty, but the banning of this barbaric practice is long overdue.

Jeff Burger Ridgewood, N.J.

Prof. Robert Blecker seems as incapable of feeling pity for Nikolas Cruz as Mr. Cruz was of feeling pity for his victims. Just as I cannot imagine the terror and pain these victims felt in the long moments before their deaths, I cannot imagine the horror of Mr. Cruz’s life. In no way does that horrific childhood justify his crimes. But it does make me feel sorrow for him along with his victims.

It seems his life’s potential ended long before he picked up that gun and walked into a school to commit mass murder. That’s at least partly the fault of the culture and country we all as Americans share.

Cheryl Alison Worcester, Mass.

I understand Robert Blecker’s point of view, and it’s a compelling one. Emotionally, it feels right to exact this punishment, especially on a person so coldhearted, calculated and genuinely remorseless. This does not mean it is right.

The prison system is corrupt, and Nikolas Cruz may very well live out his life in relative comfort (though we cannot know this). My reaction to this is to argue for a better, more just prison system.

Mr. Blecker states at the end of his article that our collective failure to impose the death penalty equates to a failure to denounce the horrific crimes this man committed. But I don’t think it’s a reflection of him or our opinions of him at all, and I think saying it gives the shooter too much power.

Our refusal to implement the death penalty reflects who we are, and what we value. Because even in the face of a man whose main goal was to make us afraid, we have chosen never to stoop to his level.

Amaya Gonzalez-Mollmann Brooklyn

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.

We  inspire, educate, equip  everyone for a career in human rights. We also provide information about online courses, jobs, paid internships, masters degrees, scholarships and other opportunities in the human rights sector and related areas.

About us Our Team Advertise Our Partners Contact us Post a Job

Magazine Courses Masters Internships Issues Job board

Subscribe to our newsletter

Get free updates about online courses, paid internships, bachelor's and master's programs, scholarships, summer schools and other educational opportunities delivered to your inbox.

© Human Rights Careers Reg. no. FN 534686 d | VAT: ATU75556337

• Editor's Pick
• Career Guide

Garber Announces Advisory Committee for Harvard Law School Dean Search

First Harvard Prize Book in Kosovo Established by Harvard Alumni

Ryan Murdock ’25 Remembered as Dedicated Advocate and Caring Friend

Harvard Faculty Appeal Temporary Suspensions From Widener Library

Man Who Managed Clients for High-End Cambridge Brothel Network Pleads Guilty

The Death Penalty is Wrong. Every Single Time.

On Friday, March 4, the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty for Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. A federal jury originally sentenced Tsarnaev to death in 2015, a decision that was later overturned by a federal appeals court in 2020. In early 2014, in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing, we expressed sympathy for the city of Boston and denounced the attacks, but remained “categorically opposed to the death penalty.” As the court said, “Just to be crystal clear … Dzhokhar will remain confined to prison for the rest of his life, with the only question remaining being whether the government will end his life by executing him.” In 2022, our stance has not changed — the death penalty should not exist.

Consider that the Supreme Court’s verdict follows a wave of 13 federal executions carried out by the Trump administration in the span of six months, the first federal killings in 17 years; the 2021 execution of Oklahoma inmate John Marion Grant by lethal injection, during which Grant convulsed and vomited on his gurney as he lay dying; and the Biden administration’s reinstatement of the federal moratorium on the death penalty just last July.

For some, opposing the death penalty may be a matter of principle: Because each human life is special and important, ending it is impermissible in every instance. We are inclined to agree, but such moral absolutes are hard to reconcile with the harsh realities faced by people who have been hurt by acts of violence. It is not our place to argue moral right and wrong with the victims of the Boston bombing or the victims of violence anywhere.

While we can understand why some may support the death penalty, we remain unconvinced that the death penalty should be legally permissible. We don’t believe that the death penalty accomplishes either retribution or determent.

With regard to the former, each individual who has experienced violence has a different idea of what justice and healing look like . Some demand that those responsible pay with their lives, others choose to forgive. No one, however, should have their wounds continually reopened by the long process of appeals and reversals that capital punishment decisions often entail. Even when the perpetrator is executed, it is not as though the pain of losing a loved one will suddenly dissipate. In the end, the death penalty is an irrevocable punishment that is neither guaranteed to be worth the years of anguish spent waiting nor capable of healing trauma caused by violence.

With respect to determent, capital punishment may actually end up doing more harm than good. In cases of ideological violence such as the Boston Marathon bombing, execution can make a martyr of a perpetrator. Far from discouraging future acts of violence, the death penalty risks providing fodder for radicalization and provoking further retaliatory attacks. Not to mention, in the case of suicide attacks where the perpetrator lacks regard for their own life and safety, the death penalty fails immediately to be even a penalty.

Ultimately, we are left with a bleak picture. When confronted with tremendous losses caused by acts of extreme violence, it is understandable for us to seek some sort of action to take — actions that can emphasize our agency and counter the paralyzing feeling of powerlessness. But the death penalty is not this action.

This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.

Have a suggestion, question, or concern for The Crimson Editorial Board? Click here .

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

• Entertainment
• Events Sports Podcasts Better Planet Better Workplaces Vault Mightier Autos Newsletters Unconventional Vantage Experts Voices
• Subscribe for $1
• Better Planet
• Better Workplaces
• Newsletters
• Unconventional

The Death Penalty, for All its Problems, is Worth Keeping | Opinion

When I drove to the Florida State Prison to witness an execution in the summer of 1984, my young man's brain was not fully formed on the death penalty. I knew I agreed with it in broad principle, but I had reservations about trusting government with a judgment call featuring truly zero margin for error.

After watching a man die in the electric chair, and after interviewing family members of the people he killed and after absorbing the process I had just been a part of, I reached clarity. I embraced my support for the death penalty and have never looked back. It struck me that I had seen precisely the proper consequence for the crimes committed, and the relief and satisfaction I saw from those families underscored the moral foundation of capital punishment.

Now I live in Texas, which has been noteworthy for a death penalty so efficient that, as the dark joke goes, you can see the line move on death row. But this is not your father's Texas death penalty. The two years of this decade have seen six executions in Huntsville (headquarters of the state's Department of Criminal Justice). Compare that with 166 from 1990 to 1999, and 248 from 2000 to 2009. Business is no longer booming.

Texas mirrors the nation in that regard. The 1990s saw 478 American executions, followed by 590 the decade following. That was a jump from roughly 48 per year to almost 60 per year. The average since 2016 is about 20.

What's the reason for this decline? States have been slowly abolishing the death penalty; only eight did not have it in 1970, while 23 do not today. Add three governors who have imposed moratoriums, and executions are legal in a minority of states for the first time in our history.

But in addition to legal change, certain factors emerging over the last decade have slowed the execution process, even in southern and western states where the death penalty remains popular. Are we seeing the gradual extinction of the death penalty? If so, is that a good or bad thing? Or are we mired in an era of complications and problems that simply need to be fixed before we can return to confidence in reliable legal mechanisms and consequences?

Opponents of the death penalty have based much of their argument on the likelihood of executing an innocent person. It can be argued that one case is too many, and even the staunchest death penalty supporters wish to be certain of guilt. In a human system, it is impossible to believe that we have always been right. Death rows across America are filled with inmates for whom guilt is a certainty. But groups like the Innocence Project have successfully used modern DNA technology to exonerate almost 400 convicts—21 of whom were awaiting execution.

Juries convict routinely on a basis of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If a mistake is made, someone can be released from prison. Since execution is forever, perhaps we can raise the bar to a certainty of guilt beyond even the shadow of a doubt, reserving life imprisonment for those cases that fall short.

Opponents also assert that the death penalty is applied in a racially biased manner. The Death Penalty Information Center points to a 35 percent figure for black death sentences, nearly three times the percentage of the population that is African American. But the higher death penalty rate reflects a higher crime rate among minorities, and these inequalities are likely more economic than racial.

Another barrier to execution efficiency involves the favored method of lethal injection. Around 2011, European manufacturers began banning the export of key drugs used in the lethal mix. American companies have shown wavering enthusiasm in picking up the slack. A spate of botched injections in 2014 sparked unsettling news stories and a flurry of legal challenges to the method long considered the most humane.

• Republicans Are Joining the Fight to End the Death Penalty
• Capital Punishment Still Serves Its Purpose. Don't Abolish It

As lethal injection supply chains falter, states are expanding their range of options. As the electric chair loses acceptability, South Carolina, which provides for inmates to choose their method, has reauthorized firing squads. If that bristles with even greater old-school harshness, consider the view of Fordham law professor Deborah Denno, who can understand why states are going "back in time" to avoid the uncertainties of lethal injection. The trained marksmen of a firing squad, she says, are a better bet for a swift end than prison volunteers administering a dicey drug cocktail. "We don't know if the person is going to be skilled in lethal injection in the way police or military are trained to shoot to kill."

As a society, we have a lot to think about. If voters no longer believe in the moral and legal correctness of capital punishment, they are free to vote it out in their states. But the moral underpinning of the death penalty—established in the Bible (and never revoked by Jesus, despite critics' claims) and lasting through the ages to deliver the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime—has no expiration date.

Every effort should be made to address the doubts, concerns and nuts-and-bolts practicalities of the way executions are performed. Any decision to keep or do away with the symmetrical justice of the death penalty should be based on the merits of the practice itself, unclouded by complications that should be fixable.

Mark Davis is a talk show host for the Salem Media Group on 660AM The Answer in Dallas-Ft. Worth, and a columnist for the Dallas Morning News and Townhall .

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

Top stories

Did AI Influence the Election Result? Experts' Verdicts

Donald Trump's Election Win Has World Leaders in a Spin

Trump Won't 'Go Down Fighting' for Matt Gaetz, Ex-Aide Says

Thanksgiving Winter Storm Forecast Shows Heavy Snow Could Strike 10 States

About the writer.

Arguments against the Death Penalty

This essay about the arguments against the death penalty explores its ethical, practical, and moral shortcomings. It presents a vivid narrative that critiques the justice system’s fallibility, highlights discrimination based on race and class, and questions the human rights implications of state-sanctioned executions. It challenges the purported deterrence value of the death penalty and underscores its financial burdens, ultimately advocating for life imprisonment as a more humane and equitable alternative. The text calls for a reevaluation of values and a shift towards abolition.

How it works

In the tapestry of discourse surrounding the death penalty, myriad strands weave together to form a complex narrative. At the heart of this narrative lies a persistent dialogue, wherein advocates and opponents engage in a tug-of-war of ideals, ethics, and practicalities. Amidst this dialectic, the arguments against the death penalty emerge as a chorus of dissent, challenging the status quo and advocating for a more enlightened approach to justice.

The first brushstroke on this canvas of opposition is the recognition of the fallibility inherent within the justice system. Need a custom essay on the same topic? Give us your paper requirements, choose a writer and we’ll deliver the highest-quality essay! Order now

Like a tapestry fraying at the edges, the system reveals its imperfections through cases of wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice. The specter of executing an innocent person looms large, casting doubt upon the irreversible nature of the death penalty. With each exoneration, the fabric of certainty unravels, underscoring the grave risks posed by a system that errs in judgment.

Echoing through the corridors of debate is the refrain of arbitrariness and inequality in the application of capital punishment. Like threads pulled askew, disparities based on race, class, and legal representation mar the integrity of the justice system. Statistical analyses paint a troubling portrait of bias, revealing patterns of discrimination that belie the notion of equal justice under the law. In this landscape of inequity, the death penalty stands as a stark reminder of systemic injustices that persist within society.

Amidst the cacophony of dissent, a chorus rises in condemnation of the death penalty as a violation of fundamental human rights. Like a symphony of protest, voices unite in defense of the right to life and dignity. The specter of state-sanctioned killing is castigated as a relic of a bygone era, incompatible with the values of a civilized society. International human rights organizations add their voices to the chorus, denouncing the death penalty as a barbaric practice that has no place in the modern world.

Against the backdrop of moral outrage, proponents of abolition point to the lack of empirical evidence supporting the deterrent effect of the death penalty. Like a spotlight shining on an empty stage, studies fail to establish a causal link between capital punishment and reduced crime rates. The assertion that executions serve as a deterrent is debunked, leaving proponents of the death penalty standing in the shadows of conjecture and speculation.

In the theater of justice, the cost of the death penalty looms large, casting a long shadow over fiscal responsibility and resource allocation. Like a ledger filled with red ink, the financial burden of capital punishment strains budgets and diverts resources from more pressing priorities. The exorbitant costs of legal proceedings and incarceration weigh heavily on taxpayers, prompting questions about the wisdom of maintaining a system that exacts such a high price.

Amidst the tumult of debate, a consensus emerges in favor of alternative sentencing options. Like seeds planted in fertile soil, proposals for life imprisonment without parole take root, offering a more humane and pragmatic approach to justice. Life sentences provide opportunities for rehabilitation and redemption, fostering a sense of hope amidst the despair of incarceration. In this paradigm shift, the death penalty withers like a fading flower, overshadowed by the promise of a more compassionate and equitable future.

As the curtain falls on the debate, the arguments against the death penalty echo in the chambers of conscience, challenging society to confront its values and principles. Like a clarion call for justice, voices unite in opposition to a practice that stains the fabric of humanity with bloodshed and injustice. In this symphony of dissent, the death penalty stands as a relic of a bygone era, awaiting the final act of abolition in the theater of history.

Cite this page

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

"Arguments Against The Death Penalty." PapersOwl.com , 29 Apr 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/arguments-against-the-death-penalty/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Arguments Against The Death Penalty . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/arguments-against-the-death-penalty/ [Accessed: 21 Nov. 2024]

"Arguments Against The Death Penalty." PapersOwl.com, Apr 29, 2024. Accessed November 21, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/arguments-against-the-death-penalty/

"Arguments Against The Death Penalty," PapersOwl.com , 29-Apr-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/arguments-against-the-death-penalty/. [Accessed: 21-Nov-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Arguments Against The Death Penalty . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/arguments-against-the-death-penalty/ [Accessed: 21-Nov-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

Death Penalty: Why the Death Penalty Should be Abolished Essay

(yes) nicole smith ­– an argument in favor of capital punishment, (no) stephen nathanson – why we should put the death penalty to rest, my evaluation, my opinions of the arguments, works cited.

The death penalty involves condemning a criminal to death due to a horrendous crime (Roberts-Cady 185). Its existence in the criminal justice system remains is a subject of contention. Stephen Nathanson advances an argument against the death penalty in his article, Why We Should Put the Death Penalty to Rest, by refuting the moral and legal grounds upon which its proponents base their arguments. In a separate article, An Argument in Favor of Capital Punishment, Nicole Smith shows that despite the mounting opposition towards the death penalty, there is reason to keep it in the penal code. These two articles form the core of this essay since its main concern is to determine which one of the two arguments is stronger.

The gist of Nicole Smith’s (Smith par. 1-8) argument is that the death penalty or capital punishment is necessary because it deters murder, thereby saving the victims’ families and friends the pain of losing loved ones. She further argues that in cases where a murder has occurred, the death penalty serves justice to the victim’s loved ones.

Smith’s position on the killing of innocent individuals is apparent. She esteems human life and strongly argues against the killing of innocent individuals. She argues that since victims die and are oblivious of what transpires afterwards, the point of concern is the agony that their loved ones undergo. According to Smith, these people deserve nothing less than retribution. Smith quotes a famous biblical expression, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”, to support her argument (par. 2). Since the criminal takes away human life, the only punishment that is commensurate with such an act is to take their life as well. Although she recognizes that the criminal justice system may sometimes err and convict innocent people, she downplays such possibilities on grounds that the error margin is negligible.

Nathanson for his part presents two major arguments in support of his position. Firstly, he argues that the death penalty violates the same values it is supposed to promote (Nathanson 124). For instance, if a criminal receives a death sentence, the only circumstance under which the conviction can be justified, is when the justice system determines beyond any doubt that the convicted individual is the perpetrator of the said crime. Unfortunately, sometimes the system captures and convicts innocent individuals. According to Nathanson (124), the execution of just one innocent individual due to lapses within the justice system contradicts the value of justice.

Secondly, Nathanson refutes the claims that the death penalty preserves human life. Murderers are guilty of killing and so is the justice system when it sentences an individual to death (124). The ideal of respect for human life denies anyone authority over another person’s life under whatever circumstances. Therefore, even if one is guilty of murder, their life is equally important because they are also human. Executing such a person over claims of respect for the life of the victim is inconsistent with the principle of respect for human life.

I esteem ethics and I believe that matters of life and death, such as those presented in these arguments can only be evaluated adequately by the use of relevant ethical theories. The ethical theories that can best evaluate this issue include utilitarianism and Kantian ethics. In utilitarianism, the merit of an action is evaluated by its consequences. From this perspective, Smith’s argument seems plausible because she places emphasis on the effects of murder on the victim’s loved ones. To strengthen the argument further, she adds that it serves the greater good to execute a criminal to avoid the recurrence of murder cases by the same individual. Therefore, if a single individual is executed to save an entire society from pain, suffering, and mayhem such as that caused by serial killers; it is understandable (Berns and Bessette 1).

However, according to Kantian ethics, although it is wrong to kill, executing one person in an attempt to pay for the death of another is not plausible. Executing a criminal to pay for another death is tantamount to assuming that two wrongs can make a right (Gray 257). This assumption does not make sense at all. This position is consistent with Nathanson’s argument that executing a criminal for whatever reason is inconsistent with the belief in the sanctity of life. It is therefore hypocritical to assume that the criminal’s life is of less value in comparison to the victim’s life.

Additionally, the criminal justice system is notorious for some unforgivable lapses that often lead to the incarceration of innocent people (Nathanson 124). Even if only one out of every a thousand convicts is innocent, the system cannot claim to serve justice. The life of that single innocent individual is precious. Moreover, even the 999 who are rightfully convicted do not deserve to die. Their lives are equally important and should be protected by the same system.

While Smith’s argument seems plausible at the superficial level, it is not entirely ethical. It is equally unethical for a criminal to kill an innocent victim, but the idea of punishing murder by death is certainly outdated and has no place in modern society. Human society has advanced in many ways and has abandoned the wisdom of its ancient ancestors, which did not seem to make sense. It would, therefore, be plausible to apply the same standard to the death penalty debate. Even the bible, which is the source of the principle, cautions against it in the second testament. Therefore, using such a principle as the basis for dispensing capital punishment cannot be right by any standards.

Nathanson’s argument is, therefore, more endearing because it shows that no matter the angle of perception, the death penalty remains unreasonable. He points out an important issue in the debate about the death penalty by arguing that both sides cite justice and respect for human life as the values they seek to promote in their arguments. Then he proceeds to show that the death penalty does not serve justice in all cases and is therefore wrong.

He also shows beyond doubt that the death penalty undermines the sanctity of life. Therefore, it’s being part of the penal code allows some unscrupulous individuals to use it for their selfish gain. As such, it should be abolished altogether. Countries that do not have the death penalty, such as Britain have much lower murder cases compared to the U.S. Therefore, proponents of the death penalty, such as Smith, who claims that its removal will cause a rise in murder cases have no ground to make such claims.

In conclusion, both arguments seem to appeal to the sense of reason. However, based on one underlying belief, the distinction can be made as to which argument is more plausible. Although there are circumstances, under which I believe in utilitarianism, in this case, Kantian ethics carry the day. Nathanson’s arguments sound more reasonable to me because I believe that no human being has authority over the life of another whatsoever. Since no element of bias is identifiable in both arguments, my position is that the death penalty should be abolished.

Berns, Walter and Joseph Bessette. “Why the Death Penalty is Fair.” Wall Street Journal , Eastern edition ed.: 1. 1998. ProQuest. Web.

Gray, James P. “Essay: Facing Facts on the Death Penalty.” Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 44.3 (2011): 255-264. Academic Search Complete . Web.

Nathanson, Stephen. “Why We Should Put the Death Penalty to Rest.” Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics 15 (2005): 124.

Roberts-Cady, Sarah. “Against Retributive Justifications of the Death Penalty.” Journal of Social Philosophy 41.2 (2010): 185-193. Academic Search Complete . Web.

Smith, Nicole. An Argument in Favor of Capital Punishment. Article Myriad. 2011. Web.

• Mapp v. Ohio: Reasons, Resonance and Consequences
• Courtroom Participants’ Professional Standards
• “Marriage Story” Film Analysis
• Fitzgerald’s “Hero” in “Tender Is the Night”
• Nuclear Weapons Should Be Abolished
• Christopher Buckley’s “Supreme Courtship”
• Social Injustices in U.S Courts
• The Use of the Exclusionary Rule
• The History of San Quentin State Prison
• Problem Analysis in the Criminal Justice System
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, January 28). Death Penalty: Why the Death Penalty Should be Abolished. https://ivypanda.com/essays/death-penalty-why-the-death-penalty-should-be-abolished/

"Death Penalty: Why the Death Penalty Should be Abolished." IvyPanda , 28 Jan. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/death-penalty-why-the-death-penalty-should-be-abolished/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Death Penalty: Why the Death Penalty Should be Abolished'. 28 January.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Death Penalty: Why the Death Penalty Should be Abolished." January 28, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/death-penalty-why-the-death-penalty-should-be-abolished/.

1. IvyPanda . "Death Penalty: Why the Death Penalty Should be Abolished." January 28, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/death-penalty-why-the-death-penalty-should-be-abolished/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Death Penalty: Why the Death Penalty Should be Abolished." January 28, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/death-penalty-why-the-death-penalty-should-be-abolished/.

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment