Essay About About Death Penalty

had varying legislation regarding the death penalty. In ancient Egypt during the 16th century BC, individuals were instructed to take their own lives if accused of practicing magic. European intellectuals such as Montesquieu, Voltaire, and Bentham consistently opposed the notion of sentencing someone to death. Thomas Jefferson played a crucial role in advocating against the death penalty in America by implementing reforms specifically aimed at Virginia's capital punishment laws. These reforms resulted in reduced penalties for murder and treason. Benjamin Rush also joined the movement opposing capital punishment in America by arguing that it acted as a deterrent.

The United States' position on the death penalty has undergone a significant shift, resulting in differing viewpoints among states. During the 19th century, New York pioneered the use of the electric chair for executions, which was subsequently adopted by other states and employed during William Kemmler's execution. The number of executions in America surged during the early to mid-1900s, peaking in the 1930s as the highest recorded in any decade throughout American history. Subsequent debates have arisen regarding the legality of capital punishment, ultimately placing human lives at stake.

Those against the death penalty argue that using death as a punishment raises ethical concerns, as it values a murderer's life more than their victim's. They believe sentencing criminals to death is morally unjustifiable and promotes a culture of violence. Furthermore, they claim that waiting for execution can lead to increased deviant behavior and additional crimes. Advocates for abolishing the death penalty also highlight its negative psychological effects on the criminal's family members, especially in cases of public executions where witnesses may endure psychological torture and seek revenge by committing

even more atrocious crimes.

The death penalty can result in a rise in crime and the continuation of criminal activity within society. Moreover, studies indicate that the application of capital punishment disproportionately impacts impoverished and minority communities, thereby undermining the equity of this penalty. Such inequality undermines the fundamental objective of the death penalty, which is to deliver justice for victims. Additionally, the belief that wealthier individuals can avoid punishment for their offenses may lead to social turbulence and discord.

Opponents of the death penalty argue that it should be abolished as an unjust and unfair system. They claim that it perpetuates racism and exacerbates economic issues. These individuals contend that there is no evidence to support the notion that capital punishment effectively reduces violent crime. Instead, they propose focusing on rehabilitating criminals and finding alternative ways to utilize their skills rather than ending their lives. The use of the death penalty raises concerns due to its potential for executing innocent people, incurring high costs, prolonging the suffering of victims' families, and conflicting with religious beliefs regarding the sanctity of life (Jones, 2010).

Advocates of the death penalty argue that capital punishment is necessary for severe crimes such as rape, treason, torture, kidnapping, larceny, and murder. They believe it is the ultimate way to ensure justice for victims and send a strong message about zero tolerance towards crime. Despite differing opinions on this issue, supporters of the death penalty prioritize being tough on crime rather than having unconditional tolerance. It is widely agreed that crime is damaging and must be combated using all available methods. Supporters of capital punishment often assert that harsher penalties act as a deterrent

for potential wrongdoers who fear getting caught and facing consequences.

The purpose of death penalties is to deter crime by discouraging people from committing crimes. Supporters argue that this form of punishment is cost-effective and reduces the government's burden of supporting prisoners in jails. They believe that the fear of death penalties serves as a strong deterrent for potential criminals, especially in murder cases, resulting in lower crime rates. Furthermore, proponents contend that there exist various execution methods, some of which are less cruel such as injections compared to more painful alternatives like firing squads or gas chambers.

Advocates assert that the death penalty acts as a deterrent and stops criminals from committing further offenses. Rogers (2008) maintains that it is also a cost-efficient substitute for life imprisonment, thus justifying its utilization of taxpayer money. Furthermore, certain prison systems are more severe and cruel in comparison to capital punishment. Consequently, the execution of offenders is preferred over subjecting them to harsh conditions throughout their entire lives.

The need for retribution is met by the death penalty and it is believed to be a stronger deterrent when the offender is denied life. Nevertheless, flaws in the system have led to wrongful execution of innocent individuals on numerous occasions. This wrongful execution illustrates a miscarriage of justice as it involves mistakenly putting innocent people to death. It can also be contended that judges who impose death penalties may not always be dependable in accurately establishing guilt. Hence, systems employing the death penalty must ensure their reliability for dispensing justice to accused criminals.

Otherwise, the majority of individuals may suffer the consequences of crimes they have no involvement in. According to research,

4% of executions in America are wrongful convictions. The rate of mistaken executions has been increasing since 2005. A study from Michigan Law school shows that in 2014, 139 people were executed, but in 2015, another 149 individuals were acquitted for crimes they were wrongly connected to. These facts highlight the importance of recognizing the flawed nature of the death penalty system to ensure dignity and justice prevail.