Death Penalty: Pros and Cons

Death Penalty: Pros and Cons

The death penalty is one of the most debated institutions in the United States today, with passionate opinions on both side of the argument. Some argue that the death penalty is morally wrong or justified, while others make a legal and constitutional case for its abolition or stay. Many have even begun to debate the legality and morality of the methods of execution. Through a discussion of the arguments both in favor and against the death penalty, it becomes easier to understand why this issue is of such controversy in the United States.

On the pro-side of this argument are those who uphold a long tradition in American history when they affirm the death penalty, which has not only been in practice since colonial times, but has been used in different societies throughout history. This group argues that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for someone who has committed the "ultimate crime" (White, n.d., pg. 1). This sort of eye for eye mentality sees the death penalty as a punishment, similar to jail time or a fine. Those in favor of the death penalty often argue that different crimes call for different punishments, and the most severe call for death. Thus, the death penalty as punishment view is offender-centered.

Another argument in favor of the death penalty, however, is victim or society-centered. This is the argument that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime, or that it encourages would-be criminals not to commit their crimes, saving lives. Liptak (2007) writes, "According to roughly a dozen recent studies, executions save lives. For each inmate put to death, the studies say, 3 to 18 murders are prevented" (para. 2). This is arguably the pro-side of the debate's strongest evidence for the death penalty. Although the statistics and studies used to argue that the death penalty really does act as a deterrent are often ridiculed as skewed, proponents of the death penalty will argue that refusing to execute one guilty person in order to potentially save multiple innocents does not make sense.

Countering their argument, abolitionists, or those who are not in favor of the death penalty suggest that the deterrence claim is not strong enough to sustain the death penalty, even if proven correct. They argue that "the theories of economists do not apply to the violent world of crime and punishment" (Liptak, 2007, para. 6). Abolitionists take this view because their primary argument against the death penalty is that it is a denial of civil rights, that the government does not have the power to take away one's inalienable right to life, even if that person committed a terrible crime. Articulating this point-of-view, non-profit NGO Amnesty International states, "The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state in the name of justice. It violates the right to life...It is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. There can never be any justification for torture or for cruel treatment" (White, n.d., pg. 1).

In addition to the argument that it is a denial of human rights, abolitionists have an equally strong offender-centered argument of innocence (White, n.d. pg. 2). They argue that innocent people are often put to death, in what can only be termed a heinous denial of justice. Further arguments against the death penalty consist of its use against primarily poor offenders, its inconsistent use, and the fact that convicted criminals, even murderers, can reform in prison and be reproductive once again (White, n.d., pg. 2). White uses the example of Stanley "Tookie" Williams to show this is true. Williams, a former gang member and founder, was executed in 2005, but only after he had sincerely reformed of his ways during the prison sentence prior to his execution. He wrote children's books about the dangers of gangs and was nominated for both the Nobel Peace and Literature prizes. Despite protest, the state decided to execute him for his crimes. Advocates of the death penalty would most likely question his conversion or suggest that he still needed to be punished, through death, for the lives he took.