argumentative essay for the death penalty

Argumentative essay on death penalty

In 1994, Seth Penalver was sentenced to death for a brutal murder that involved three individuals. There was no actual physical evidence relating him to the crime. The only evidence they had was a video with poor quality in which the murderer’s face could not be seen as well. Penalver remained in custody until 2012, when he was finally acquitted of all charges. (Florida: Seth Penalver, acquitted in 2012) Death Penalty is a crime. The death penalty is unjustifiable, hypocritical and leads to false imprisonment that results in executions that are later discovered to be found.

Seth Penalver case is just among the countless cases that have been recorded by individuals who have been on the verge of death due to poor apprehension tactics in their case. Investigations that have been carried out in numerous states following the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976 reveals that there are numerous people who were executed yet innocent. It is inevitable to state that the execution of any innocent individual is morally reprehensible. Despite the effort that has been put into guaranteeing proper investigation and conviction of individuals brought in front of a court, no case is fool proof (Ogletree 18). Thus, there might be the conviction of people into death row yet innocent. Based on this, it is recommendable that all individuals, if found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, are given a sentence of life without parole which is reasonably effective. The sentencing of death to some criminals might put them out of the misery they might have endured in prison.

The manipulation of the judicial system has been evident where in history it is recorded that factors such as race influenced the death sentence in certain states. This is evident in cases whereby if an African American murdered a white man, he or she was likely to be sentenced to death which is unlike if the situation was reversed. In states such as Oregon, there have been numerous accounts of biases whereby the blacks were victimized by being given the death sentence, which would not have been the case if a white man killed an African American. The death row system has also been a significant waste of the taxpayers money whereby in cases such as the 1995 Washington County murder cases an estimated $1.5 million shillings was spent yet only one of the three suspects was sentenced to death (Ellsworth and Samuel 28). An investigation conducted by the Oregon Department of Administrative Service has made statements that the abolishment of the death row system would save the federal government a substantial amount of resources that could be utilized in significant development projects.

Despite the overwhelming evidence that may be rendered against a suspect, it is important to note that this does not necessarily make them guilty. However, the lack of a proper defense, particularly among suspects who do not have the financial resources to hire a good lawyer, are likely to be found guilty and sentenced to death. An analysis of the numerous cases that the death penalty has been reversed there has been overwhelming evidence pointing out poor counsel. A study conducted by the Columbia University argues that an estimated 68% of appeals made by individuals sentenced to death have been reversed due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Based on this understanding, it would be inappropriate to continuously sentence people to death row as there are numerous factors that could contribute to misjudgment.

Despite the numerous arguments that have been presented in support of the abolishment of the death penalty, there continues to exist counter arguments who believe that the death penalty should be upheld. Among the substantial arguments that have been presented is that, the public execution of the said offenders serves a public reminder to criminals that crime is not rewarding. Speculations reveal that an evaluation of the rate of homicide in numerous states significantly dropped after the incorporation of the death sentence (Hood and Carolyn 7). The further argument presented in support of the death penalty states that the execution of a convicted felon guarantees that the killer will never be engaged in the act again. This argument has been supported by the fact that a significant number of people have been killed by convicted felons who managed to get parole or escaped from jail.

argumentative essay for the death penalty

Irrespective of the varied arguments that have been presented in support of the death penalty, I believe that everyone has the capacity to change. It would, therefore, be inappropriate to sentence convicted felons to death without giving them an opportunity to express their remorse towards their actions. It is important that other means of dealing with criminals who are engaged in great crimes is developed because the death sentence has seemingly had no positive impact on lowering the crime rate.

Ellsworth, Phoebe C., and Samuel R. Gross. “Hardening of the attitudes: Americans’ views on the death penalty.” Journal of Social Issues 50.2 (1994): 19-52.
Hood, Roger, and Carolyn Hoyle. The death penalty: A worldwide perspective. OUP Oxford, 2015.
Ogletree Jr, Charles J. “Black man’s burden: Race and the death penalty in America.” Or. L. Rev. 81 (2002): 15.
Bill of Rights
Civil Disobedience
Drunk Driving
First Amendment
Forensic Science
Gang Violence
Human Rights
Identity Theft

Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty

Click the buttons below to view arguments and testimony on each topic.

The death penalty deters future murders.

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 .

“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.

15 Quotes Exposing Injustice in Society

14 Trusted Charities Helping Civilians in Palestine

The Great Migration: History, Causes and Facts

Social Change 101: Meaning, Examples, Learning Opportunities

Rosa Parks: Biography, Quotes, Impact

Top 20 Issues Women Are Facing Today

Top 20 Issues Children Are Facing Today

15 Root Causes of Climate Change

15 Facts about Rosa Parks

Abolitionist Movement: History, Main Ideas, and Activism Today

The Biggest 15 NGOs in the UK

15 Biggest NGOs in Canada

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.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Argumentative essay on The death penalty

2016, Argumentative essay on The death penalty

Related Papers

Gerardette Philips

Brendan Beech

Mary Blakelock

charity mae dacut

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

Meray Maddah

" No crime goes unpunished " ; we are probably familiar with this quote where anyone who is guilty of any committed crime they should be prosecuted for it before the law and be held responsible for the actions that generated such crime. What people are also familiar with is the Universal Deceleration of Human Rights and the number of articles that it calls for, but distinctively the right to liberty, freedom and personal security. This right something that states and their sovereigns, at least most of them, aspire to accomplish in respect to their nationals' own security, well-being and livelihood; because after all what good is a state if it is not able to make its citizens enjoy the type of life that every human being is entitled on the expense of a certain political agenda from the state's part. In this sense, the state in such scenario will be the responsible party for not only distributing these rights but also following up with the citizens' utilization of these rights and making that each one does have the bare minimum of each right; meaning the entire right itself and not to settle with anything less. That said, what if the state in this case was the party that not only did it not allow the enjoyment of the before mentioned right; but also was the reason why that person is no longer alive? Capital punishment or the application of the different methods of death penalty are still part of many states' judiciary systems and are still until the present day categorically practiced based upon the crime committed by the defendant. No matter how heinous a crime maybe or the fact that numerous of these crimes claim other people's lives, but in the process what good and what type of benefit can we justify ourselves with when we are producing the same end result, that is death, through different procedures that fall under the label of " law application " ? Most importantly, how can we distinguish ourselves from these same criminals and why is acceptable to kill in the name of a perceived justice if such death penalty is agreed upon by a judiciary commission, than to reject

Joseph U C H E Anyebe

The issues as touching death penalty is as topical as they come. This Work seeks to address some of those issues and proffer solutions to some of those identified therein

Charadine Pich

Indian Journal of Legal Philosophy, ISSN:2347-4963,

Ashay Anand

Since the ancient ages ‘Death Penalty’ has been used as a means of deterring crime and eliminating criminals, but it has always been fraught with issues that have been hotly debated between its supporters and antagonists. In the contemporary era ‘Death Penalty’ faces severe challenges mainly regarding the shadow of arbitrariness looming over its applicability, its ability to be an effective deterrent and the serious issue of innocent people continuously in a danger of being sentenced to capital punishment under questionable circumstances which are still an integral part of this process. Moreover it also faces a continual threat of acting as a tool of retribution under pressure of public opinion and mass media. As such should death penalty be scrapped or should it be allowed to function as a necessary evil or an invisible scepter that keeps the perverse from doing heinous acts is an issue worth consideration.

Ines Manoylova

David Von Drehle

RELATED PAPERS

Mahmuda Mukta

Réanimation

françois lemaire

New Journal of Chemistry

Mohsine Driowya

Mauricio Trujillo

Hasan Hasan

Katinka Bergema

The American Journal of Sports Medicine

luis melendez

Jurnal Riset Akuakultur

Indra Suharman

Temas em Psicologia

jucelaine Grazziotin

Clinical Biochemistry

Karim Parastouei

Krzysztof Dudek

Alcohol and Alcoholism

Olivier Bon

Open Access Emergency Medicine

Osama Kentab

Latin American Journal of Development

109 Ioneide Negromonte de Vasconcelos Rocha

Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics

Marine and Petroleum Geology

Psychiatry Research

Mark Salazar

Jean-Michel Bruel

08. Daniesh Bangkit Wijaya

Publizistik

Rudolf Stöber

Communications in Computer and Information Science

NORZAIDAH MD NOH

Annals of Clinical Biochemistry

Abayomi Akanji

Moudi ALASMARI

See More Documents Like This

The Death Penalty, a Just Punishment Essay

The use of the death penalty is considered by some to be the most obvious and heinous example of cruel and unusual punishment. The book An Eye for an Eye (Nathanson, 2001) articulates the opposition viewpoint. It and like-minded opponents to capital punishment do not believe that the government should be vested with the power to put any of its citizens to death and that the practice is racially biased, overtly costly, and does not achieve the intended outcome. The majority in this country believes it to be neither cruel nor unusual, on the contrary, they think it just and fair.

Originally, the death punishment is aimed to be the revenge for a crime, to protect society by imprisoning the criminal, to deter that person and other potential offenders from the commission of crimes, and to obtain reparations from the offender (Wolfgang, 1998). This type of punishment was intended to be the compensation for a crime, linked with life destruction (a crime, after which life was impossible). This category includes murder, rape (deprivation of honor), and similar actions. Originally, the death punishment should be appointed to any murderer, rapist, and serial gambler (gambling rarely deals without deaths). It is necessary to mention that capital punishment is often regarded as the most powerful crime prevention tool, as the fear of being sentenced to death makes some criminals refuse their ideas and intentions.

As for the necessity of the death penalty, the following fact should be emphasized: the death penalty is the most effective means of crime eradication. The punished criminal does not require to be guarded, fed, observed, etc. No Person – No Trouble. The principles of the criminals should be used against them, consequently, the death penalty is the best way to give humanity to realize the horror of death and the fear of being killed. Despite the fact it is considered a violation of the principal human rights, there is no necessity to regard criminals as humans, while the criminals ignore the rights of their victims. However, the investigation system should be essentially improved in order to avoid mistaken sentencing and the punishment of the innocents.

Sending a murderer away to enjoy three meals a day and a roof over their heads for life simply doesn’t fully address the issue. Death penalty laws have been known to change and probably will again. In addition, people tend to forget the past and parole boards constantly evolve their personnel so there is always a chance, no matter how small, that the murderer will strike again if he is allowed to remain alive. A life sentence imprisonment tends to depreciate with the passage of time as these examples illustrate. In 1962, James Moore raped and strangled 14-year-old Pamela Moss in New York State. Her parents were opposed to the death penalty and asked that he be given life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Moore has been eligible for parole every two years since 1982 because of a change in sentencing laws. In 1966, Kenneth McDuff was convicted in the fatal shooting of two boys in the face and the brutal rape and strangulation of their 16-year-old female friend. A Texas jury sentenced McDuff to die in the electric chair but in 1972 this was commuted to life in prison after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. In 1989, he was released only to commit at least six more murders which included a pregnant mother of two. He was finally executed in 1998 (Lowe, 2006).

Although the U.S. court system is at least among the most equitable in the world, no system of justice can expect to provide perfect results 100 percent of the time. Mistakes are inherent within all systems that rely on the human element for proof and for judgment. The justice system correctly demands that a higher standard be imposed for determinations of guilt in death penalty cases. With the extraordinary due process that is applied in all death penalty cases, the risk of making a mistake is minute. Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976, there has been no credible evidence provided that confirms any innocent persons have been executed. The more than 100 ‘innocent’ death row inmates that were ‘exonerated’ are a sham. The actual figure of innocent death row inmates is nearer 40 which should be considered in context with the 7,000-plus death–row inmates added to the roles since 1973. Mistakes within the system, though few and unavoidable, should not serve as justification to eradicate the death penalty. We should never disregard the dangers of permitting murderers to kill again (Stewart, 2006).

The death penalty is the option of last resort for criminals that cannot be rehabilitated. Every murderer executed is one less person that the taxpayers are not feeding and housing. An execution is less costly to taxpayers than the alternative, long imprisonment. “The cost of supporting criminals in maximum security prisons until they die is very high and they feel the innocent taxpayer should not have to foot the bill for the care of depraved criminals who’ve demonstrated that they have no respect for society’s laws or human life” (Olen & Barry, 1996: 273-274). Additionally, a lengthy appeals process is a costly process that ties up the court system. This cost is considered by opponents to be an insignificant argument because the value of human life cannot possibly be broken down into columns on a profit and loss ledger. Department of Justice statistics clearly illustrates that the death penalty contains many constitutional flaws. Between 1973 and 1993, almost half (forty-two percent) of inmates awaiting the death sentence had their sentences commuted or reversed. Capital punishment is “a waste of money and resources in producing what turns out to be counterfeit death sentences in almost one out of every two instances” (McCloskey, 1996: 7).

Opponents of the death penalty defy reasonable logic by arguing that taking a murderer’s life devalues human life, the ‘killing is wrong no matter the circumstances’ argument such as expressed in (Nathanson, 2001 p.7). Evidently, they have never had their car stolen and don’t understand the example or they believe that the murderer’s life is more valuable than the victim’s. Taking away criminals’ freedom is the only way of showing how much this society showing values freedom. Taking away criminals’ life is the only way of showing how much this society values life.

Works Cited

“Furman v. Georgia.” The Supreme Court Collection. (1972). Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Web.

Lowe, Wesley. “Capital Punishment vs. Life Without Parole.” ProDeath Penalty. (2006). Web.

Nathanson, Stephen “An Eye for an Eye?” Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.; 2nd edition (2001).

Olen, Jeffrey & Barry, Vincent. Applying Ethics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., (1996).

Prager, Dennis. “Death Penalty Guards What is Valued Most.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. (2001).

Stewart, Steven D. “A Message from the Prosecuting Attorney.” The Death Penalty. Clark County, IN: Office of the Clark County Prosecuting Attorney, (2006).

Wolfgang, M.E. “We Do Not Deserve to Kill.” Crime and Delinquency. Vol. 44, (1998), pp. 19-32.

Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, November 18). The Death Penalty, a Just Punishment. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-death-penalty-a-just-punishment/

"The Death Penalty, a Just Punishment." IvyPanda , 18 Nov. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/the-death-penalty-a-just-punishment/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'The Death Penalty, a Just Punishment'. 18 November.

IvyPanda . 2021. "The Death Penalty, a Just Punishment." November 18, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-death-penalty-a-just-punishment/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Death Penalty, a Just Punishment." November 18, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-death-penalty-a-just-punishment/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Death Penalty, a Just Punishment." November 18, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-death-penalty-a-just-punishment/.

Strict Liability Case: A Statement of Facts, Arguments
Overcrowd Prisons With Non-Violent Offenders
Analyzing the Adaptation of the Shakespeare's "Macbeth"
The U.S. Federal Parole System
Does Parole Work? Effectiveness of Parole
Probation and Parole
Parole as an Incentive to Control Inmate Behavior
Parole system in the United States
Oil Crisis of 1973: Article Study
Parole as an Essential Correctional Component
Capital Punishment: Term Definition
Capital Punishment in the UK Should be Reintroduced?
Capital Punishment – Moral or Immoral?
The Death Penalty in the United States
The Death Penalty, a Matter of Morals

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Death Penalty — Against the Death Penalty: A Persuasive Argument for Abolition

Against The Death Penalty: a Persuasive Argument for Abolition

Categories: Capital Punishment Death Penalty

About this sample

Words: 919 |

Published: Mar 18, 2021

Words: 919 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Works Cited

Dieter, R. C. (2010). The death penalty in decline: From error to arbitrariness. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 99(3), 1005-1032.
National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. (n.d.). Innocence and the death penalty. Retrieved from https://www.ncadp.org/pages/innocence
National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. (n.d.). Costs of the death penalty. Retrieved from https://www.ncadp.org/pages/costs
Baumgartner, F. R., De Boef, S., & Boydstun, A. E. (2008). The decline of the death penalty and the discovery of innocence. Cambridge University Press.
Bedau, H. A., & Cassell, P. G. (Eds.). (2004). Debating the death penalty: Should America have capital punishment? Oxford University Press.
Schabas, W. A. (2013). The abolition of the death penalty in international law. Cambridge University Press.
Benjet, C., González-Rodríguez, R., Orellana, Y., Borges, G., & Medina-Mora, M. E. (2007). Descriptive epidemiology of homicide in Mexico: 1990-1999. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 85(5), 364-371.
Bright, S. H. (2009). Counsel for the poor: The death penalty not for the worst crime but for the worst lawyer. Yale Law Journal, 103(8), 1835-1882.
Shepherd, J. M. (2017). Serial killers: Evolution, antisocial personality disorder and psychological interventions. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 28(6), 723-740.
Poveda, T. (2014). The death penalty in Latin America: A comparative analysis of the struggle for abolition in Mexico and Colombia. Journal of Latin American Studies, 46(4), 755-781.

Cite this Essay

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

Prof Ernest (PhD)

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

5 pages / 2452 words

2 pages / 760 words

2 pages / 745 words

2 pages / 1011 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

In conclusion, the ethical considerations surrounding the death penalty for murderers are complex and multifaceted. The arguments for deterrence, retribution, and justice are countered by concerns about the risk of wrongful [...]

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is a highly debated and controversial topic. While some argue that it serves as a deterrent for heinous crimes and provides justice for victims and their families, others [...]

The death penalty has been a contentious issue in the United States for decades. Advocates argue that it serves as a deterrent for heinous crimes, while opponents highlight the moral and ethical implications of state-sanctioned [...]

The death of a moth may seem like a trivial event, but Virginia Woolf's essay "The Death of the Moth" suggests otherwise. Through her vivid and poetic language, Woolf portrays the inevitability of death and the fragility of [...]

The dilemma of whether or not the Death Penalty is ethical is major problem facing society today. The death penalty is given to those who commit crimes deemed by society and government as deserving the infliction of death with [...]

The Death Penalty has been a widely controversial topic in America as it is illegal in 27 of the 50 states in America. Only 21 of the 50 states have been a part of this movement including Texas, Alabama, and more. During the [...]

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

Persuasive Essay Writing

Persuasive Essay About Death Penalty

Craft an Effective Argument: Examples of Persuasive Essay About Death Penalty

Published on: Jan 27, 2023

Last updated on: Jan 29, 2024

What Do We Mean by a Persuasive Essay?

A persuasive essay is a type of writing that attempts to persuade the reader or audience.

This essay usually presents an argument supported by evidence and examples. The main aim is to convince the reader or audience to take action or accept a certain viewpoint.

Persuasive essays may be written from a neutral or biased perspective and contain personal opinions.

To do this, you must provide clear reasoning and evidence to support your argument. Persuasive essays can take many forms, including speeches, letters, articles, and opinion pieces.

It is important to consider the audience when writing a persuasive essay. The language used should be tailored to their understanding of the topic.

Read our comprehensive guide on persuasive essays to know all about crafting excellent essays.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That's our Job!

Let's move on to some examples so that you can better understand this topic.

Persuasive Essay About Death Penalty Examples

Are you feeling stuck with the task of writing a persuasive essay about the death penalty?

Looking for some examples to get your ideas flowing?

Youâre in luck â weâve got just the thing! Take a look at these free downloadable examples.

Example of a Persuasive essay about death penalty

Persuasive essay about death penalty in the Philippines

Short Persuasive essay about death penalty

Persuasive essay about death penalty should be abolished

The death penalty pros and cons essay

Looking for some more examples on persuasive essays? Check out our blog about persuasive essay examples !

Argumentative Essay About Death Penalty Examples

We have compiled some of the best examples to help you start crafting your essay.

These examples will provide dynamic perspectives and insights from real-world legal cases to personal essays.

Have a look at them to get inspired!!

Argumentative essay about death penalty in the Philippines

Argumentative essay about death penalty with introduction body conclusion

Argumentative essay about death penalty should be abolished

Argumentative essay about death penalty conclusion

6 Tips To Write an A+ Persuasive Essay

We know it can be daunting to compose a perfect essay that effectively conveys your point of view to your readers. Worry no more.

Simply follow these 6 tips, and you will be on your way to a perfect persuasive essay.

1. Understand the assignment and audience

Before you start writing your essay, you must understand what type of essay you are being asked to write. Who your target audience should be?

Make sure you know exactly what youâre arguing for and against, as this will help shape your essay's content.

2. Brainstorm and research

Once you understand the topic better, brainstorm ideas that support your argument.

During this process, be sure to do additional research on any unfamiliar points or topics.

3. Create an outline

After doing your initial research, create an outline for your essay that includes all the main points you want to make.

This will help keep your thoughts organized and ensure you cover all the necessary points cohesively.

Check out our extensive guide on persuasive essay outlines to master the art of creating essays.

4. Make an argument

Use persuasive language and techniques to construct your essay. Strong evidence, such as facts and statistics, can also help to strengthen your argument.

5. Edit and revise

Before you submit your essay, take the time to edit and revise it carefully.

This will ensure that your argument is clear and concise and that there are no grammar or spelling errors.

6. Get feedback

Lastly, consider asking someone else to read over your essay before you submit it.

Feedback from another person can help you see any weaknesses in your argument or areas that need improvement.

Summing up,

Writing a persuasive essay about the death penalty doesnât have to be overwhelming. With these examples and tips, you can be sure to write an essay that will impress your teacher.

Whether itâs an essay about the death penalty or any other controversial topic, you can ace it with these steps!

Remember, the key is to be creative and organized in your writing!

Don't have time to write your essay?

Don't stress! Leave it to us! Our persuasive essay writing service is here to help!

Contact the team of experts at our essay writing service. We can help you write a creative, well-organized, and engaging essay for the reader.

Our persuasive essay writer will write the best essay for you at affordable rates! Moreover, we provide free revisions and other exclusive perks!

So don't delay! Ask us to write an essay for me today!

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the most persuasive argument for the death penalty.

The most persuasive argument for the death penalty is that it is a deterrent to violent crime.

The idea is that by punishing criminals, other potential criminals will be less likely to act out of fear of similar punishment.

How do you start a persuasive speech on the death penalty?

When starting a persuasive speech on the death penalty, begin by introducing and defining the topic. Provide an overview of the controversial issue.

Outline your points and arguments clearly, including evidence to support your position.

What are good topics for persuasive essays?

Good topics for persuasive essays include

Whether or not the death penalty is a fair punishment for violent crime
Whether harsher punishments will reduce crime rates
Will capital punishment is worth the costs associated with it
How rehabilitation should be taken into consideration when dealing with criminals.

Cathy A. (Marketing, Literature)

For more than five years now, Cathy has been one of our most hardworking authors on the platform. With a Masters degree in mass communication, she knows the ins and outs of professional writing. Clients often leave her glowing reviews for being an amazing writer who takes her work very seriously.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

Legal & Policies

Privacy Policy
Cookies Policy
Terms of Use
Refunds & Cancellations
Our Writers
Success Stories
Our Guarantees
Affiliate Program
Referral Program
AI Essay Writer

Disclaimer: All client orders are completed by our team of highly qualified human writers. The essays and papers provided by us are not to be used for submission but rather as learning models only.

Study Guides
Homework Questions

Death Penalty Argumentative Essay.edited

Entertainment
Environment
Information Science and Technology
Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Social Issues Death Penalty

Examining the Death Penalty: An Argumentative Perspective

Table of contents, death penalty arguments: deterrence and prevention, ethical considerations: the value of human life, implementation complexities: ensuring fairness, conclusion: weighing the arguments.

*minimum deadline

Cite this Essay

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

Poverty in America
Immigration
Breastfeeding in Public
Hippies Movement

Related Essays

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

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

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

Houses made on death row | STEPHEN COOPER

I have powerful memories and prized possessions from when I worked in Montgomery, Alabama, defending men sentenced to death. Prominent among these I count a pair of miniature houses that my former client, Joseph Smith, made for my wife and me when he learned we were moving to California.

Joseph made the houses from popsicle sticks soaked in coffee, stones from the prison yard, bits of plastic, and a few other items he managed to ingeniously — and skillfully — cobble together from one of the most bleak, severe, joyless environments you can imagine. (In an essay I published in 2016 called “Alabama’s Holman prison is ‘Hell on Earth,’” I described where Joseph is incarcerated as “a bastion of violence, fear, pain, and baleful human suffering.”

Now I’m not arguing that because Joseph was able to carpenter together the beautiful, thoughtful houses he made for my wife and me — houses that even open up in the center providing a space to store things in — that his crimes that landed him on death row should be forgiven, or forgotten. Many infamous serial killers, mass murderers, even Hitler, made art . This essay does not give them or anyone who commits murder a “pass.” Rather it doubles down on an argument I’ve pressed before, in 2017, in a column called “A Life Without Parole Sentence — Not the Death Penalty — for Hitler.”

And, too, this composition expands on my first publication in The Times of Israel , “Growing Away from God by Executing Michael Smith,” to argue again that: All good, God-fearing, God-loving people, must reject capital punishment. Because despite the wars and violence raging all around us, it is God and God alone who has the authority to decide when a human life — even one being “lived” such as that is feasible — in a “hell on earth” prison — is due to be extinguished.

That said, profanely, as it concerns the April 9 execution of Brian Dorsey in Missouri, by law, it’s Governor Parsons — and not God — who has the power to decide if another human being, whom God created in His image, should die. (As I once observed in the Alabama Political Reporter concerning how “Clemency in Alabama is a Farce,” query if the same isn’t so in Missouri, and ask yourself as I once did: “Doesn’t the screwed up clemency process really alert us — in the same way that a gigantic flashing neon sign might — that the only real ‘ultimate authority’ who should be making decisions about which humans live or die, is God?”)

Support for Dorsey, diverse people imploring Governor Parsons to allow Dorsey to keep living — as has been reported in the media — is massive, and it comes from such unexpected corners as: a former judge on the Missouri Supreme Court (he even published an oped arguing for Dorsey’s clemency), several of the jurors that sentenced Dorsey to death but now regret their decision, correctional officers, even some Republican state representatives — all of whom are urging Parsons to stop Dorsey’s execution. All of these people in support of Dorsey receiving clemency are making their voices noisily heard despite the sobering, sad reality that Parsons has never granted a capital-clemency request as Governor; he denied 4 of them just last year.

The Kansas City Star reported that the “70 corrections employees who support Dorsey note that he has not had any conduct violations in prison and has served as the trusted barber at Potosi Correctional Center, where he cuts hair for both staff and prisoners.” The Huffington Post further reported that: “During Dorsey’s 16 years on death row, he has never had a single disciplinary infraction[.]”

Instructively, in his 1962 book “Judaism,” Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg wrote: “God is omnipotent and yet man is responsible.” Hertzberg continued: “Man is not responsible for himself alone. He is responsible for the well-being of all men. There must therefore be law in society and respect for government, unless society itself transgresses the moral law.”

Most significantly, Hertzberg concluded that: “The rights of individuals are absolute, for every man is created in the divine image. Each has his particular virtue and capacity for service.”

And this is the essence of this essay: God created Joseph Smith. And God created Michael Smith. And God created Brian Dorsey — just as God created you and me. God gave each of these men, and each of us, despite how far we’ve fallen — despite our sins — life, and with it, certain attributes, certain gifts; these “gifts” may be as subtle as having a nice smile, and as simple as being someone’s loved one, or, having the divine ability to make another human being happy.

Joseph Smith has an undeniable God-given gift for woodworking and craft-making. As his former attorney, I can say Joseph showed himself when I knew him to be a considerate person whose value as a human on earth, albeit the crimes he’s been convicted of, and albeit incarcerated where he is — and will remain — has holy significance. For Brian Dorsey, his God-given gift is cutting hair at his prison, and: being such an overwhelmingly good presence that he enjoys the unparalleled institutional, law-enforcement support he has, to receive clemency, and stay alive, albeit incarcerated—until God decides otherwise.

All human beings sin, and some do so so greatly that they will never be free again. This is for their own safety, frankly, as much as our society’s. And this is already a terrible reality that shouldn’t be compounded by, decades after their crimes, executing people such as Joseph and Michael Smith — or Brian Dorsey. Killing off God’s creation by way of man’s “justice” system can never take the place of God’s justice.

Again to quote Rabbi Hertzberg: “For two and one half years the schools of Hillel and Shammai debated the question whether it would have been better had man not been created. Finally they agreed it would have been better had man not been created.”

Critically however for Governor Parsons — and all of us humans I submit, too — as Hertzberg wrote, “since man has been created, let him investigate his past deeds, and let him give due consideration to what he is about to do.”

For Governor Parsons that can mean only one thing — the only godly thing: Reduce Brian Dorsey’s sentence to life without parole. And for everyone else? To implore Parsons to do this.

*This essay was originally published in The Times of Israel . It’s being published here with the author and The Times of Israel’s permission.

Stephen Cooper is a former D.C. public defender who worked as an assistant federal public defender in Alabama between 2012 and 2015. He has contributed to numerous magazines and newspapers in the United States and overseas. He writes full-time and lives in Woodland Hills, California. Follow him on "X"/Twitter @SteveCooperEsq

Share full article

Supported by

Did Prosecutors’ Sex Shaming Help Send Brenda Andrew to Death Row?

The Supreme Court will soon decide whether to hear an appeal in her case, which, as one judge put it, “focused from start to finish on Ms. Andrew’s sex life.”

The front of the United States Supreme Court building.

By Adam Liptak

Reporting from Washington

During his closing argument in the 2004 murder trial of Brenda Andrew in Oklahoma, a prosecutor dangled her thong underwear before the jury. She had packed the undergarment for a trip to Mexico a few days after her estranged husband was killed.

The prosecutor, Gayland Gieger, said the item was strong evidence that Ms. Andrew had murdered her husband. “The grieving widow packs this to run off with her boyfriend,” he said, holding her underwear.

“That’s enough,” he said. “Can’t twist the facts, folks. Can’t twist the evidence.”

The spectacle “drew gasps from the crowded courtroom,” a local newspaper reported. The jury convicted Ms. Andrew and condemned her to death. She is the only woman on the state’s death row.

Later this month, the Supreme Court will consider whether to hear Ms. Andrew’s appeal , which said the display of her underwear was a representative part of an unrelenting strategy by prosecutors, as a dissenting judge put it, “of introducing evidence that has no purpose other than to hammer home that Brenda Andrew is a bad wife, a bad mother and a bad woman.”

Nathalie Greenfield, one of Ms. Andrew’s lawyers, said gender stereotypes infected the trial and poisoned the jury.

“Every single day the state was presenting gendered evidence about her appearance, about her clothing, about her sexual practices, about her skills as a mother,” she said. “We’ve got someone who is at risk of execution for not conforming to gender stereotypes.”

A brief supporting Ms. Andrew from a former federal judge and others said the volume of prejudicial evidence portraying her as “a hypersexual seductress” warranted review. “The prosecution introduced reams of inflammatory evidence about Ms. Andrew’s sexuality,” the brief said, including “lurid details of her multiple affairs, her suggestive clothing and lingerie, her cleavage and even a book on how to ‘Drive a Man Wild in Bed.’”

The Supreme Court has overturned a death sentence based on testimony tainted by racial bias, saying that “some toxins can be deadly in small doses.” Ms. Andrew’s case asks whether courts should take a similar approach to evidence grounded in gender stereotypes.

“Gender bias is normalized and tolerated to an extent that racial bias no longer is in the administration of the death penalty,” said Sandra Babcock , a law professor at Cornell who represents Ms. Andrew in a related case . “Women on trial for capital murder have been subjected to similar shaming tactics for hundreds of years.”

In urging the Supreme Court not to hear the case, Andrew v. White , No. 23-6573, prosecutors said almost nothing to justify using evidence about Ms. Andrew’s appearance and sexuality. They argued instead that it was “but a drop in the ocean” in the case against her. State and federal appeals courts have more or less agreed, suggesting that the prosecutors’ presentation was regrettable but that there was ample evidence of Ms. Andrew’s guilt.

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, for instance, said in 2007 that it was “struggling to find any relevance” for much of the contested evidence but added that “even so, the introduction of this evidence was harmless.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit said last year that it shared the state court’s “concerns about some of the ‘sexual and sexualizing’ evidence admitted at trial” but that Ms. Andrew could not overcome the high hurdles to challenging a state-court conviction in federal court.

Ms. Andrew’s boyfriend, James Pavatt, admitted to shooting her husband and said he had acted alone. But there was reason to think Ms. Andrew was involved, as part of a plot to obtain the proceeds of a life insurance policy, and the authorities charged both of them with capital murder. Mr. Pavatt was also sentenced to death, and he is scheduled to be executed in July.

In a partial dissent from the state court’s ruling in 2007, Judge Arlene Johnson , the only woman on the court at the time, said she would have let Ms. Andrew’s conviction stand. But, she wrote, “I find it impossible to say with confidence that the death penalty here was not imposed as a consequence of improper evidence and argument” that served “to trivialize the value of her life in the minds of the jurors.”

In dissent last year from the 10th Circuit’s decision, Judge Robert E. Bacharach went further, saying he would have overturned not only her death sentence but also her conviction.

“The state focused from start to finish on Ms. Andrew’s sex life,” Judge Bacharach wrote. “This focus portrayed Ms. Andrew as a scarlet woman, a modern Jezebel, sparking distrust based on her loose morals. The drumbeat on Ms. Andrew’s sex life continued in closing argument, plucking away any realistic chance that the jury would seriously consider her version of events.”

Ms. Babcock said a male defendant would not have been treated as Ms. Andrew had been. “It’s inconceivable that the prosecution would dangle his favorite pair of boxers in front of the jury,” she said, “and argue that they proved his guilt.”

Adam Liptak covers the Supreme Court and writes Sidebar, a column on legal developments. A graduate of Yale Law School, he practiced law for 14 years before joining The Times in 2002. More about Adam Liptak

IMAGES

Death Penalty Argumentative Essay
Death Penalty Essay Introduction Free Essay Example
💄 Argument essay against death penalty. Against the Death Penalty
The death penalty argumentative essay
Example argumentative essay on death penalty by sheilaykqvj
⇉Argument: Is the Death Penalty Effective? Argumentative Essay Essay

VIDEO

argumentative speech about death penalty
A Lesson on MUET Writing Question 2
IELTS Writing task 2 Essay
Death Penalty Around The World
Death Penalty Views: A Warden's Perspective
capital punishment debate

COMMENTS

Death Penalty Argumentative Essay; Topics, Arguments, Outline
How to Write a Death Penalty Argumentative Essay Body. The body of an essay should clearly outline your different arguments. Defined by paragraphs, always ensure to sub-divide your viewpoints in the following manner: · 1st paragraph- The most crucial reason for objecting death penalty. · 2nd paragraph- Another vital argument against death ...
Argumentative essay on death penalty
The further argument presented in support of the death penalty states that the execution of a convicted felon guarantees that the killer will never be engaged in the act again. This argument has been supported by the fact that a significant number of people have been killed by convicted felons who managed to get parole or escaped from jail.
Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished?
In the July Opinion essay "The Death Penalty Can Ensure 'Justice Is Being Done,'" Jeffrey A. Rosen, then acting deputy attorney general, makes a legal case for capital punishment:
Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments
Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments. 1. Legality. The United States is one of 55 countries globally with a legal death penalty, according to Amnesty International. As of Mar. 24, 2021, within the US, 27 states had a legal death penalty (though 3 of those states had a moratorium on the punishment's use).
Support the Death Penalty: Argumentative Essay
First, my opinion is in favor of the death penalty. The state I live in now is the state where the death penalty was abolished. The death penalty must, under whatever circumstances, be enforced by the public to clarify the reason for the death of the executor and to carry it out in public proceedings. In the past, there were political deaths ...
Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty
The death penalty is applied unfairly and should not be used. Agree. Disagree. Testimony in Opposition to the Death Penalty: Arbitrariness. Testimony in Favor of the Death Penalty: Arbitrariness. The Death Penalty Information Center is a non-profit organization serving the media and the public with analysis and information about capital ...
Argumentative Paper on the Pros of the Death Penalty
The death penalty ensures that some of the society's most vicious criminals; murderers, arsons, etc. are rid off the society for good. The society can therefore continue without fear of there undesirable elements every coming back and causing chaos. From an economic point on view, the cost of maintaining prisoners in the correctional ...
≡Essays on Death Penalty: Top 10 Examples by GradesFixer
5 pages / 2464 words. The purpose of this essay is to assess the viability of the death penalty as an operative castigation. The death penalty is defined as the legal killing an individual as a sentence. As of 2018, there were 53 countries that still have the death penalty... Death Penalty Society.
5 Death Penalty Essays Everyone Should Know
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.
Argumentative essay on The death penalty
View PDF. Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty ARGUMENT 1 DETERRENCE The death penalty prevents future murders. charity mae dacut. 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 ...
The Death Penalty Can Ensure 'Justice Is Being Done'
As John Duncan was dying of cancer in 2018, he asked family members to promise they would witness the execution on his behalf. On July 17, they did. "Finally," they said in a statement ...
Argumentative Essay on the Death Penalty
The overall estimated cost of carrying out execution is about 70% more than the cost of a case without the death penalty. A case with Brian Nichols, a man from Fulton County right here in Atlanta Georgia who was found guilty of 4 murders in 2005. The state insisted on Nichols to get the death penalty and it was later revealed that his case ...
The Death Penalty, a Just Punishment
The Death Penalty, a Just Punishment Essay. The use of the death penalty is considered by some to be the most obvious and heinous example of cruel and unusual punishment. The book An Eye for an Eye (Nathanson, 2001) articulates the opposition viewpoint. It and like-minded opponents to capital punishment do not believe that the government should ...
The Death Penalty: an Argument for Its Advantages
The deterrent effect of the death penalty is a significant argument in support of its use. The theory of deterrence posits that the threat of punishment will deter individuals from committing crimes. Studies have shown that the death penalty has a deterrent effect on murder rates, and this effect is more pronounced in states with more extensive ...
Against The Death Penalty: a Persuasive Argument for Abolition
According to the National Coalition to Abolish the Death penalty, a 2012 study has shown that 4 billion dollars have been used for the death penalty since 1978, in California alone, and that changing the death sentence to a life imprisonment or another type of sentence could save at least 170 million dollars a year.
Death Penalty Argumentative Essay
Death Penalty Argumentative Essay. The death penalty is the ultimate punishment. There is no harsher punishment than death itself. Currently fifty-eight nations practice the death penalty. Our nation, the United States of America, is one of the fifty-eight nations that practice the death penalty. Currently the United States will only use the ...
10+ Top Examples of Persuasive Essay About Death Penalty
6. Get feedback. Lastly, consider asking someone else to read over your essay before you submit it. Feedback from another person can help you see any weaknesses in your argument or areas that need improvement. Summing up, Writing a persuasive essay about the death penalty doesnâ t have to be overwhelming. With these examples and tips, you can ...
Death Penalty Argumentative Essay.edited (docx)
This argumentative essay, therefore, favors the death penalty, showcasing its significance in upholding justice in. 3 societies and reducing instances of heinous acts of crime done to the vulnerable in societies. Arguments in favor of the Death Penalty Retributive Justice Retributive justice is one of the main arguments favoring the death penalty.
Examining the Death Penalty: An Argumentative Perspective
The death penalty, a highly controversial topic, has ignited passionate debates across societies worldwide. This short argumentative essay seeks to dissect the key arguments for and against the death penalty, exploring its potential deterrence effect, ethical implications, and the complexities of implementing such a grave punishment.
Argumentative Essay on Death Penalty
Argumentative Essay on Death Penalty. This essay sample was donated by a student to help the academic community. Papers provided by EduBirdie writers usually outdo students' samples. As the land of the free, did you know that America is ranked number 7, out of all the 45 countries worldwide that allow capital punishment, for how many executions ...
Argumentative Essay About Death Penalty
Argumentative Essay: The Death Penalty Case In Texas. According to the DPIC (Death penalty information center), the average amount spent on a single death penalty case in Texas is about 2.3million, which is almost three times the amount spent on an inmate put in the highest maximum security for forty years. For crimes that require or call for ...
Argumentative Essay on Death Penalty
Currently the United States will only use the death penalty, if one commits first-degree murder. Individuals that believe in the death penalty believe that capital punishment will deter murderers. In this death penalty argumentative essay, I will be arguing that the death penalty does not deter criminals and that the United States should outlaw ...
Early Doctrine on Death Penalty
Footnotes Jump to essay-1 356 U.S. 86, 99 (1958). Jump to essay-2 In Rudolph v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 889 (1963), Justices Arthur Goldberg, William O. Douglas, and William Brennan, dissenting from a denial of certiorari, argued that the Court should have heard the case to consider whether the Constitution permitted the imposition of death on a convicted rapist who has neither taken nor endangered ...
Argumentative essay about death penalty in the philippine pdf
Argumentative Essay About Death Penalty in the Philippine. The death penalty is one of the most contentious and divisive issues in the Philippine legal system. For many, it is a potent symbol of justice, with proponents arguing that it serves as an effective deterrent for violent crimes. On the other hand, opponents of capital punishment argue ...
Houses made on death row
Rather it doubles down on an argument I've pressed before, in 2017, in a column called "A Life Without Parole Sentence — Not the Death Penalty — for Hitler."
Did Prosecutors' Sex Shaming Help Send Brenda Andrew to Death Row
During his closing argument in the 2004 murder trial of Brenda Andrew in Oklahoma, a prosecutor dangled her thong underwear before the jury. She had packed the undergarment for a trip to Mexico a ...
Biden's Baltimore visit; quake rattles north-east
Monday: 23 states do not have the death penalty. Tuesday: Wisconsin was the first to fully abolish the death penalty, in 1853. Wednesday: The murder rate is higher in states that have the death ...

Argumentative essay on death penalty

Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty

Retribution

Arbitrariness & Discrimination

5 Death Penalty Essays Everyone Should Know

“When We Kill”

“An Inhumane Way of Death”

“We Need To Talk About An Injustice”

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

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

You may also like

15 Quotes Exposing Injustice in Society

14 Trusted Charities Helping Civilians in Palestine

The Great Migration: History, Causes and Facts

Social Change 101: Meaning, Examples, Learning Opportunities

Rosa Parks: Biography, Quotes, Impact

Top 20 Issues Women Are Facing Today

Top 20 Issues Children Are Facing Today

15 Root Causes of Climate Change

15 Facts about Rosa Parks

Abolitionist Movement: History, Main Ideas, and Activism Today

The Biggest 15 NGOs in the UK

15 Biggest NGOs in Canada

Argumentative essay on The death penalty

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

The Death Penalty, a Just Punishment Essay

Works Cited

Against The Death Penalty: a Persuasive Argument for Abolition

Works Cited

Cite this Essay

Related Essays

Still can’t find what you need?

Related Essays on Death Penalty

Related Topics

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

Craft an Effective Argument: Examples of Persuasive Essay About Death Penalty

What Do We Mean by a Persuasive Essay?

Persuasive Essay About Death Penalty Examples

Argumentative Essay About Death Penalty Examples

6 Tips To Write an A+ Persuasive Essay

Frequently Asked Questions

How do you start a persuasive speech on the death penalty?

What are good topics for persuasive essays?

Keep reading

Death Penalty Argumentative Essay.edited

Examining the Death Penalty: An Argumentative Perspective

Cite this Essay

Related Essays

Houses made on death row | STEPHEN COOPER

Did Prosecutors’ Sex Shaming Help Send Brenda Andrew to Death Row?

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS