Pro Death Penalty

This essay assumes a pro death penalty stance. The arguments in favor of the death penalty include the following. First, the death penalty stems from ancient traditions that define American culture and society. Second, the death penalty encourages respect for the law and possibly prevents some crimes from being committed in the first place through the deterrent effect. Third, the death penalty could save taxpayers a lot of money and reduce prison overcrowding, too. Arguments against the death penalty are valid but insufficient to withdraw from a pro death penalty position. For example, the death penalty is neither racist nor is it cruel and unusual punishment. The recommendation for public policy is to retain the death penalty.

The continuing use of the death penalty for specific crimes remains a distinguishing feature of the American penal system. Much criticism has been waged at the death penalty, and for good reason. After all, it is important to be fully certain that the individual committed the crime before issuing a sentence of death. Yet modern forensics and the rigors of jury trials do provide a reasonable degree of certainty. The death penalty may not deter some people, but could be a meaningful deterrent for others. Keeping violent criminals locked up in prison for decades costs more money than the average taxpayer realizes, and financial cost alone could suffice to explain why the death penalty should remain extant in the United States criminal justice system.

The death penalty has its roots in the Code of Hammurabi—one of the earliest recorded legal codes. Within the Code of Hammurabi, the principle of retributive justice is clearly emphasized through statements like “If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out,” (Code No. 196). The maxim, “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” was also echoed in the Bible, which is why the principle of retributive justice seems embedded into the fabric of American culture and consciousness. 

Its ancient roots are not a sufficient reason to retain the death penalty. Many modern countries have in fact abolished the death penalty on various grounds. One argument is that the death penalty is cruel. In fact, some have even claimed that the death penalty is “cruel and unusual” and therefore could be considered unconstitutional (ACLU, n.d.). Capital punishment may be cruel, but it is no crueler than the crimes the person committed. The death penalty is only issued for the most heinous of crimes, crimes against which the death penalty would seem lenient in comparison. Also, the death penalty can be considered a compassionate alternative to life in prison. Prison is not a good life, but repenting for one’s crimes in those final moments of life could be quite cathartic. 

Another argument against the death penalty is that it is too easy to sentence an innocent man to death, and death is irreversible. This would be a valid argument to make were it not for the marvels of modern science. Modern science provides law enforcement officers with incontrovertible evidence such as DNA, which can be used to apprehend the right person for the crime. Besides, it would be safer to sentence a man to prison than it would be to risk letting loose a violent criminal.

Some opponents of the death penalty like the ACLU (n.d.) have claimed that it could even be a racist policy because “people of color are far more likely to be executed than white people, especially if the victim is white,” (p. 1). However, the ACLU (n.d.) does not provide a link to the study, and therefore does not substantiate the claim that the death penalty is discriminately applied. Capital punishment exists precisely for the maintenance of justice, within a moral and legal framework that reflects the belief that the punishment should reflect the crime. The punishment should be in balance to the crime, with proportional severity: hence the symbol of Justice as a blindfolded woman holding up the scales. The blindfold shows that Justice is blind to factors like personal circumstances or excuses for committing a crime. Likewise, the scales represent equity. If a person murders another person, and especially more than one other person, that person should naturally be sentenced to death too when caught.
The death penalty provides equitable retribution for crimes committed, which is why it should remain an essential component of an effective criminal justice system in the United States. For a criminal justice system to work, the punishments do need to be equal to the crime committed, and the punishments should also be consistently meted out. Being overly lenient in criminal justice does a disservice to the society. Therefore, it would be helpful to make capital punishment even more pervasive and reliable than it is already. Those who commit violent crimes often resist rehabilitation or cannot become successfully re-integrated into the community. It is unfair to change the jurisdiction of a trial to a state in which the death penalty is not permitted. The victims deserve justice, far more than a convicted felon deserves leniency. If these types of violent criminals were to be released from a prison sentence, or were to escape custody, then the blood of their future victims would be on the hands of those who claim the death penalty should be abolished.

In addition to getting the worst of the worst off of the streets, the death penalty can also be an effective deterrent against possible future crimes committed. The evidence thus far on the direct causal relationship between capital punishment and crime rates is spurious, but generally reveals some kind of “deterrent effect,” (“Top Ten Pro & Con Arguments,” 2016, p. 1). The death penalty could deter a person who believes that they may get a free ride, out on parole, or simply mooching off of the government by spending their life in prison instead of as a working member of society. Similarly, the death penalty remains an important reminder of the power of the law. Citizens need to respect the law, and the death penalty makes sure that happens. The death penalty also ensures that the same person is guaranteed not to commit any additional crimes.
Another reason to support the death penalty in the United States is to support the rights of victims. Many victims would not feel any sense of closure if the person who was responsible for the death of their loved one were allowed to live life with three meals a day and a roof over his head, paid for by the state. Victims and members of the general public have the right to even that small moment of vindication, and the knowledge that justice has been served. Denying the victim’s family their right to closure would only add salt to the wound of their trauma. The victim’s family also has the ability to visit the person on death row, if some kind of verbal restitution can be arranged.

One of the most important reasons to support the death penalty is cost. The criminal justice system is already bloated and costs taxpayers a lot of money. Keeping a person alive in prison for the rest of his life is expensive, especially if the person is young. The state—which means the taxpayer—should not be paying money to keep a violent criminal alive. If the taxpayer only knew how much money is being spent maintaining prisons, more people would support the death penalty as an alternative to life in prison.