This paper examines capital punishment, focusing on why public support for the practice is declining in the United States. It outlines key arguments against the death penalty, including the sanctity of human life, the risk of executing innocent people, racial disparities in sentencing, and the high financial costs involved. The paper then shifts to a broader constitutional question: who has the authority to determine whether capital punishment is legal? It analyzes the Supreme Court's role in ruling on constitutionality, compares that role with legislative decision-making, and considers whether liberal or conservative ideological control of the Court is achievable or desirable.
Capital punishment is the act of executing a person found guilty, in a court of law, of committing a particular crime. Capital punishment can only be utilized by governments; in cases where non-state parties "execute" an individual and claim it is capital punishment, it is not — those parties will have committed murder. Capital punishment is typically reserved as a punishment for very serious crimes, such as rape, adultery, certain types of fraud, and treason. These offenses are referred to as capital crimes. Although many nations have outlawed capital punishment, many countries around the globe still allow it (BBC, n.d.). Statistics released in May 2012 by the global human rights organization Amnesty International reveal that as many as 141 nations had abolished capital punishment either by law or in practice (Amnesty International, 2012).
Some states across the U.S. still allow capital punishment. Public support for the practice is, however, increasingly waning in the United States. More than 50% of Americans now prefer alternative forms of punishment (Amnesty International, 2012). There are various reasons why the American public does not support capital punishment, several of which are discussed below.
Many religions and individuals stress that all human life is precious. The majority of people who oppose capital punishment hold that human life is so valuable that even the most evil individuals should not be killed. Many argue that the worth of an individual's life cannot be diminished or destroyed by that person's evil acts, even if he or she has raped or murdered someone. However, not all abolitionists agree on this basis. Some argue that human life ought to be preserved only to the extent that there is a justifiable reason to do so, and that the government should justify any decision not to preserve a convicted criminal's life (BBC, n.d.).
One of the most important and compelling arguments against the death penalty is that, if states continue practicing capital punishment, an innocent person will eventually be executed due to faulty legal processes. Judges, jurors, witnesses, prosecutors, and law enforcement personnel can all make errors. In states that have not abolished the death penalty, such errors cannot be corrected after the fact. There is credible evidence that such errors do occur: in the United States alone, approximately 130 individuals who had been convicted and sentenced to death were later found to be innocent (BBC, n.d.; Amnesty International, 2012).
According to Amnesty International (2012), research shows that over 77% of individuals sentenced to death were convicted for killing white victims, yet African Americans comprise approximately 50% of homicide victims. This disparity suggests that capital punishment has been applied selectively, providing greater legal redress for white victims than for victims of color.
Another argument advanced by abolitionists is that capital punishment is an expensive form of punishment that diverts resources from more effective crime-control measures. The heavy costs associated with capital punishment are incurred primarily during the pre-trial and trial periods, not during the post-trial appeals process. Even if appeals were eliminated for individuals sentenced to death, capital punishment would still be costlier than alternative forms of punishment (Amnesty International, 2012).
But who decides whether something is constitutional? The Supreme Court is the institution tasked with ruling on the constitutionality of acts or legislation. The justices interpret the words of the Constitution and deliver their final decision through a majority vote (Tushnet, 2013). Some have questioned why the Supreme Court holds this power rather than the public having the final say. The most common explanation is that citizens trust the justices to do the right thing, and that the public does not wish to bear the direct responsibility of ruling on constitutional questions themselves.
"Legislative authority and minority rights protection"
The debate over capital punishment in the United States involves deeply held moral, procedural, and constitutional questions. Both the courts and the legislature play contested roles in determining its future. Arguments against the death penalty — including the risk of executing the innocent, racial disparities in sentencing, and its high financial costs — continue to fuel calls for abolition. Meanwhile, the broader question of who holds ultimate constitutional authority remains unresolved, with ongoing tension between judicial review and democratic legislative processes shaping how such fundamental issues are ultimately decided.
You’re 73% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.