Jack

Mrs. Pritchard
Language Arts
14 December 2015
Should the Death Penalty Get "The Death Penalty"?
Our government isn't dependable enough to make the right decision on tough issues like
execution. For every 25 people sentenced to death row, at least one of them is innocent
(Anckar). Nicholas Yarris served twenty one years on death row, and was later proven innocent.
Frank Lee Smith died from cancer while on death row, and he was also proven innocent for the
murder he had been charged with. Curtis McCarty spent twenty one years in jail and eighteen on
death row, while also being convicted twice and sentenced to death three times. He was later
proven innocent as well. Kennedy Brewer served fifteen years on death row, and was proven to
be innocent in 2008. These are just a few of many. Those charges costed money, resources,
time, and support for the death penalty. The Catholic Church doesn't agree with the death
penalty. There are 1.2 billion Catholics in the world, which can influence the decision of capital
punishment greatly. We have not yet learned how to perform the executions correctly, even
though countries rarely go through with the execution. The bias is very strong in the system,
which ultimately affects the support of the death penalty and how much the penalty is actually
applied. The death penalty should be abolished for many reasons.
The death penalty should be abolished because of the inability to successfully perform
executions. There have been multiple deaths in the past from the executions going wrong. Jesse
Tafero was strapped into an electric chair when the sponge, or headpiece, wore out. Someone

went out to buy a new sponge, and accidentally bought a synthetic sponge. This caused Jesse's
head to catch fire while he was being electrocuted, resulting in a more horrific death than usual
(Von Drehle). Words can't describe how awful such an event is. When events like this happen, it
is a horrible representation of the death penalty, and the support for capital punishment goes
down. Since we are unable to perform these executions, many countries or states have stopped
going through with them. "Today, less than half of the countries in the world retain the death
penalty and only 30 percent actually apply it" (Anckar). This is a waste of time and money;
there is no point of putting them on death row if they are to never be executed. Since we can't
perform these correctly, multiple states have stopped executing people. The bias in the system is
an even greater problem.
The bias in the capital punishment system is a huge problem. In John Grisham's book,
The Innocent Man, Ron Williamson is sent on death row for a crime he did not commit. Ron
Williamson was known to have a drinking problem, and that effected why the judge chose the
verdict so fast. There was no real evidence of him doing it, but he seemed like the right suspect,
so the judge guessed it was him. He was very wrong. "With no physical evidence, the
prosecutor's case was built on junk science and the testimony of jailhouse snitches and convicts"
(Grisham 4). This means that this judge used Occam's Razor to make his decision; this should
not be used for tough decisions like death. Occam's Razor is the belief that the most logical
decision is usually the right decision. This shows that the court is biased in how it reaches it's
verdict and how it makes decisions. The U.S. has imprisoned 25% of the world's prison
population, while only containing 5% of the world's population. Many find this crazy since there
are more crimes committed in other countries. Not only this, but the whole system is very
biased; 48% of those imprisoned in the U.S. are African American (Stassen). Most of the people

in the courtroom are white. This can definitely become a factor on how harsh the final verdict
can be. In the states that still have the penalty, race becomes a factor as 98% of chief district
attorneys are white when only 1% is black (Stassen). In the Southern states, it seems that whites
have the advantage. It's obvious that when the judge and other people in the courtroom are
white, a white person will probably have less severe charges than a black man. "In Georgia, you
are 4.3 times more likely to be sentenced to death for killing a white person than for killing a
black" (Stassen). Also, those with a great amount of money have a greater chance of getting
sentenced to a shorter amount of time, with no death penalty. This is because they can afford
better lawyers, while the poor can't. Walter Burns, a pro-death penalty writer, admitted that those
who have good money to support themselves with superb lawyers have never gotten the death
penalty, while those who can't afford them are the ones who most commonly get put on death
row (Stassen). This is why the men who blew up the building in Oklahoma were not charged as
bad as they should have been, because they had great lawyers. Those who aren't as wealthy
aren't as lucky. There is also bias in how the court punishes the mentally disabled people. After
recent shootings by those who are mentally disabled, many believe that it is crazy that they are
unable to be sentenced to death. "He argues persuasively that this bias contaminates how juries
view defendants with mental disabilities, allows judges and juries to overlook false or distorted
testimony from supposed experts, and leads to inadequate representation by counsel"
(Bridgewater). It may sound good that they can't get executed, but it is not. According to The
Sun, 1,200 people have been killed by the mentally impaired. Terrorists like the Sandy Hook
shooter and the Colorado movie theater shooter were not given the death penalty because they
were found to be mentally ill. Instead of being given the justice they deserved for taking many
lives, they were sent off into insane asylums. There is no point in keeping them alive if they are

being sent into an asylum for the rest of their lives. Terrorism is a huge problem in our world
today, and most of them could be proven mentally ill. This does not justify their actions at all;
yet they are not aloud to be put to death. This makes the death penalty much more insignificant.
Religion also plays a huge role in support of the death penalty and why it should be abolished.
Another reason that the death penalty should be eliminated because of religion. The
Catholic church doesn't like the death penalty, which affects the behavior of the billions of
Catholic people. Now, even the Latinos have had an opinion on what they think of capital
punishment. "The negative attitude of the Catholic Church toward the death penalty, combined
with a strong cultural connection to the European Enlightenment, could explain why many Latin
American countries reject the death penalty" (Anckar). The Catholic faith contains more than a
seventh of the world's population. This religion has a direct impact on the support of the death
penalty, and is a major factor in why the death penalty's support has decreased over the past
years. Not only Catholics, but basically every other Christian denomination tends to oppose
death penalty. Jesus opposed the death penalty when some people were trying to kill a woman
because she committed adultery (Stassen). If Jesus rejected the death penalty, many followers
believe they should do the same. There are also religions that are fine with the death penalty, but
do not carry out as many executions as before. There are also many verses on the death penalty;
Romans 12:19 says, "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is
written, Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord. This verse is saying that when a crime
or murder is committed, we should not take matters into our hands. Instead, we should love
him/her just as God does, but also leave him to be judged and disciplined by the Lord himself.
There were many characters in the Bible who believed that those who murdered deserved to be
put to death, but Jesus did not feel the same way. 2 Peter 3:9 says, "The Lord is not slow to

fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should
perish, but that all should reach repentance." God forgives everyone no matter what crimes they
commit, and believes that we should do the same. He also believes that it is useless to kill
someone, and that we should give them a chance to repent instead. The problem is that not
everyone in the world is Christian and may not listen or obey what God asks of us. Not only
Christians, but also Buddhists have spoken on the penalty. Many Buddhist countries still allow
the death penalty, but the majority of them hardly ever apply it (Anckar). There are also some
reasons why the death penalty could possibly, but not probably, work.
There are also some parts to the death penalty that could be good for some places. There
was a survey taken by some prisoners that had the question of if they would rather have the death
penalty or life without parole. A good majority of them picked the death penalty. These are the
exact opposite than the results of the survey given to the public. This shows that prisoners do not
like prisons at all and would rather die than live in one their entire life. The public has never had
such an experience, which changes their answer. Europe has not been using the death penalty
recently, but that doesn't mean that other countries are doing the same. In the Middle East, North
Africa, and Americas, the death penalty has been used rather frequently recently. There are cases
like the Boston Bomber, where most of the public wants the terrorist to be sentenced to death. If
he wasn't executed, their would have been social unrest for weeks or months. There are many
stories about the executions going terribly wrong, but no one ever talks about how many of them
succeed. It is the states' fault that they are wasting money on purchasing tools for execution and
not actually following through with the deaths; this has nothing to do with the wrongdoing of the
death penalty. Charles Manson, for example, was the co-founder of the beach boys but then
threw his life away by performing a bunch of crimes. Instead of him being put to death, the

Supreme Court decided to keep him alive and give him life without parole. This was a mistake,
as Charles was part of a conspiracy and was able to plan out attacks on certain people, even
while in jail. By the time he was caught, his group had already murdered nine people. If he was
put to death, those nine people still would've been alive. If the death penalty is kept alive, it
could protect things like this from happening. Morals have effected support of the death penalty.
Morals have also affected support of the penalty. Many people believe it is not right to
kill someone, no matter what they do. I believe that the government should avoid putting people
to death as much as possible, but there comes to a point where a mass murdered or terrorist or
whoever needs to be executed. I believe life without parole is a better option than the death
penalty. "Life without parole doesn't trigger the separate sentencing trials and automatic appeals
that can make death sentences so financially and emotionally costly" (Von Drehle). Not only is
this option morally better, but can also save money and resources. Also, there was a survey sent
out to the public asking whether they would prefer the death penalty or life without parole. An
overwhelming amount of them said life without parole. The excessive cost is another reason
why the penalty should be destroyed.
The death penalty should be banished because of the excessive cost. Many states have
stopped executing people, which has been a huge waste of money. Some people think that
executions are cheap, but they are not. Not only is it expensive to get the tools to perform a
proper execution, but the trial itself costs a crazy amount of money. Since 1978, California has
spent 4 billion dollars on capital punishment cases, and yet has only executed 13 people
(Anckar). All of this money could be going to a better cause or even helping solve the debt
problem we have in the U.S. Instead, we are wasting 4 billion dollars on executing 13 people,
even when many people believe executing them is wrong. Life without parole is a much more

effective option. A good thing about life without parole is the cost. "The majority of Americans
now say they prefer life without parole over the death penalty (LosAngeles Times, Dec. 15,
2006). It costs $12.3 million to execute someone, but $1 million to keep that person in jail for
life" (Stassen). The difference is when you execute someone, they cannot be brought be back to
life and there will possibly be more disagreement between the people on whether the death
penalty. With life without parole, the man/woman stays alive and you save 11 million dollars
compared to if you executed someone. Over time, this amount of money saved could add up to
billions.
The death penalty should be removed because it has become useless and a disadvantage
for the countries using it, especially in the past few centuries. For example, if a friend was
charged and guilty with accounts of murder, would you rather have them be sentenced to death
right away or kept alive in jail? If they are executed, then that's it. No more life for them, no
more chances to possibly assign to a faith or ask for forgiveness, no more chances to make
friends, etc. If they are given life without parole, there are still chances for him to repent, for
people to pray for them, still chances to see them face to face, and still chances for them to enjoy
life, even in jail. Or, what if that friend is actually innocent and has the chance to be proven
innocent ten years later? If they are executed, there is no chance of this. However, if they aren't
executed then there is a chance of this. A ban of the death penalty in the United States could help
decrease the amount of debt there is right now since the trials and executions cost so much to
execute properly. This can lead to things like taxes and gas prices going down. If the death
penalty is abandoned, there will be more money and resources, less death, and leave these
important decisions out of the government's hands. When humans finally come to a realization

that capital punishment isn't worth it, the world will be a much more peaceful and better place for
everyone.

Works Cited:
Anckar, Carson. Brown Journal of World Affairs. Fall/Winter 2014, Vol. 21 Issue 1, p7-25. 19p.
Academic Search Premier. Web. 5 Nov. 2015. <http://ebscohost.com>
Grisham, John. The Innocent Man. New York: Doubleday, 2006. Print.
Smith, Justin E. H. "'There Is Blood, A Lot Of Blood, Very Red Blood'." Chronicle Of Higher
Education

61.42

(2015):

B14.

MasterFILE

Premier.

Web.

Nov.

2015.

<http://ebscohost.com>
Stassen, Glen. "The Death Penalty Is Losing." Tikkun 23.4 (2008): 43-47. Literary Reference
Center. Web. 4 Nov. 2015. <http://ebscohost.com>
"The Innocent and the Death Penalty." The Innocence Project. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Dec. 2015.
Von Drehle, David. "Bungled Executions. Backlogged Courts. And Three More Reasons The
Modern Death Penalty Is a Failed Experiment." Time 185.21 (2015): 26. MAS Ultra School Edition. Web. 4 Nov. 2015. <http://ebscohost.com>
Von Drehle, David. "Death Penalty Walking." Time 171.2 (2008): 38-41. Academic Search
Premier. Web. 9 Nov. 2015. <http://ebscohost.com>

Von Drehle, David.

"The Tab For That Last Meal." Newsweek Global 162.20 (2014):

MasterFILE Premier. Web. 10 Nov. 2015. <http://ebscohost.com>