1

The Pros and Cons of the Death Penalty

By: Morgan Seals

Deterrence
For- The death penalty could be used to deter people from committing serious crimes like
murder out of fear. Some people who commit crimes might not take the justice system seriously
because they dont think that the punishment will be difficult to deal with or match the severity
of the crime. Life in jail is not always going to be enough of a deterrent for someone who has a
goal to commit a serious crime like murder. The threat of life in jail might not seem like a big
deal or mean much for some but a more severe punishment like the death penalty could better
deter someone from committing a murder. There has been a study that states that between three
and 18 lives would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer (Robert Tanner, 2007).
The death penalty could also prevent killers from committing more murders.
Against- Life in Jail could be just as effective in deterring crime as the death penalty, no person
wants to live the rest of their life inside of a jail. For example there are studies that show that the
rates of murder are lower in states that do not use the death penalty.
Another argument is that the death penalty could also do the opposite from deterring
murderers from killing. An example of this is when William Bowers
(deathpenaltycurriculum.org) of Northeastern University argues that society is brutalized by the
use of the death penalty and this increases the likelihood of more murder. Even most supporters
of the death penalty now place almost no weight on deterrence as a serious justification for its
continued use.
I think that if someone is dead set on killing someone nothing, not even the death penalty,
is going to deter them from accomplishing their goal. Criminals who have a plan to kill someone
are not often in their right mind, their punishment is the last thing on their mind. They may even

be aware of their possible punishment but find the crime worth whatever they will receive after
they are caught, the death penalty would not deter them from their goals.
Retribution
For- Retribution, an eye for an eye. When someone takes the life of another isnt it fair that
they should give their own? Retribution is the view of justice that if you take a life another has
to be given. This is based off of the an eye for an eye idea to bring balance to justice. An
example of why retribution is a good reason to use the death penalty is shared by Robert Macy
(deathpenaltycurriculum.org), District Attorney of Oklahoma City. He describes one of the
reasons why he thinks retribution should be a factor of the death penalty, "In 1991, a young
mother was rendered helpless and made to watch as her baby was executed. The mother was then
mutilated and killed. The killer should not lie in some prison with three meals a day, clean sheets,
cable TV, family visits and endless appeals. For justice to prevail, some killers just need to die."
Why should he live when he took it upon himself to take the lives of others? The death penalty
helps bring closure to those who were affected by the criminal and bring them peace of mind.
Against- While retribution can bring closure to those effected by the actions of another two
wrongs do not make a right. If people respond to being wronged by someone by inflicting the
same damage back this only encourages more pain and suffering. By using retribution as a cause
for the death penalty society would only be promoting more violence instead of justice. It is
hypocritical to try and convince people that killing is bad by killing we cannot teach that killing
is wrong by killing, (deathpenaltycurriculum.org, 2000 - 2012). For example those with
religious views would argue that revenge is not true justice and that you cannot restore what was
lost or undo the crime committed.

Innocence
For- The death penalty would ensure that the criminal would at some point get what he or she
deserves, better safe than sorry. This would lead criminals to believe that no one can escape the
death penalty. If the law has reason to believe someone has committed a crime worthy of the
death penalty, even if the verdict is wrong, it is better to give them a sentence than sending
someone potentially dangerous back out on the streets.
Against-What do you do if you give the death penalty to an innocent person? The death penalty
is not a good choice because if you convict the wrong person of a crime an innocent person could
end up unfairly losing their life for the crime of another. It is not right to take the lives and
reputation of the innocent because of the flaws in the justice system. An example of the innocent
almost being put to death is the statistic that shows that there have been a total of sixty-nine
people, since 1973, sentenced with the death penalty only to be released due to later discovered
evidence proving their innocence (Joseph Burrows, 1994). The justice system is too flawed to be
able to determine who keeps their life. This puts the innocent, who are supposed to be the ones
protected by the law, in danger.
Arbitrariness and Discrimination
For- If we assign random attorneys than it creates a level of fairness to the person under trial. If
they cannot afford to hire their own lawyer than one will be provided. It does not matter how
qualified they are if the person is guilty than the truth will come out if they have a good or bad
attorney.

There have been studies about criminal patterns and who are most likely to commit
crimes, which includes race, age, and gender. Some people like to keep these studies in mind so
that they can apply it to the justice system and keep be more aware of troubled people.
Against- The jury could unfairly convict someone based on their own biases who do not deserve
to be punished. It is unfair to single out any particular person because of a seemingly
undesirable characteristic instead of actual guilt. A persons race, age, and gender do not always
mean that they are as guilty as they are perceived. The criminal justice system should be
unbiased and treat each defendant equally to avoid an unjust sentencing.
The skill level of a defense attorney plays a factor in the trial because it is the attorneys
job to defend the client and this cannot be done well if the attorney is randomly assigned. We
should not put someones life on the line because someone is a better lawyer.
If the trial takes place in an area that is known to have strong biases against certain types
of people or races than this could lead to unfair treatment in justice system. For example if a
person of color is convicted of a crime and their trial takes place in an area that holds strong
racial bias than it is more likely that they will not receive a fair trial.
Cost
For- Less inmates in prison means you dont have to care for them for their entire life. It would
cost more in the long run to feed and provide other necessities for all criminals with a life
sentence than it would to put someone to death. It the government stopped the life sentence and
used the death sentence more than it would save more money collectively than it would by taking
care of criminals for the rest of their lives.

Against- It has been stated by a Seattle University doing research on the issue of cost and the
death penalty that Washington has found that with each death penalty case the cost is an average
of $1 million more than a similar case where the death penalty was not sought ($3.07 million,
versus $2.01 million).(www.deathpenaltyinfo.org, 2016). This increases the amount of taxes
citizens have to pay, the total amount that taxpayers would have to accumulate would be about
$120 million.
Using the death penalty is unnecessarily taking more money away from citizens when life
in prison is just as effective as a form of punishment and takes less taxes from the community.
The cost of judges and lawyers to prepare a case for the death penalty is much more than a
regular case because of the hours they need to put in making sure everything is in order. They
need to have all of the facts straight and review the case because there is a life is at stake.
Eighth Amendment Rights
For- the death penalty does not violate the Eighth Amendment. Cruel and unusual punishment
usually includes torture, deliberately degrading punishment, or punishment that is too severe for
the crime committed (dictionary.reference.com, 2005). The federal law has defined cruel and
unusual punishment regarding the Eighth Amendment as it would during the time it was written.
At the time the Eighth Amendment was created cruel and unusual punishment included things
like burning at the stake, crucifixion, or breaking on the wheel (legaldictionary.thefreedictionary.com, 2003-2016). The death penalty does not resemble any of the
things on this list. The death penalty is not too severe for the crime committed, it is and equal
and fair way to deal with someone who has taken the life of another human being.

Against- The Supreme Court has stated that excessive force against a prisoner rules as cruel and
unusual punishment even if the prisoner is not badly hurt. If that is considered cruel and unusual
punishment than so is the death penalty. The death penalty also counts as cruel because it leaves
prisoners with no chance for rehabilitation to improve their lives for the better. The eighth
amendment is violated when the death penalty is in use because there are some methods used to
take the prisoners life that can be painful, this can be seen as a form of cruel and unusual
punishment or torture. Life in jail and having to live with what they did is enough punishment,
they learn their lesson and are not able to hurt others while locked away.

Citations
Deterrence (In Opposition to the Death Penalty). (n.d.). Retrieved March 04, 2016, from
http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/student/c/about/arguments/argument1b.htmStud
ies Say Death Penalty Deters Crime. (2007).
Retrieved March 04, 2016, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/06/11/AR2007061100406.htmlRetribution (In Support of
the Death Penalty). (n.d.).
Retrieved March 04, 2016, from
http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/student/c/about/arguments/argument2a.htm
Statement of the Administrative Committee of the United States Catholic Conference.
(1999). Testimony on Retribution Against the Death Penalty. Retrieved March 4,
2016, from http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/node/13
Burrows, J. (1994). Innocence and the Death Penalty: The Increasing Danger of Executing
the Innocent. Retrieved March 05, 2016, from
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/523
Cruel and unusual punishment definition. (2005). Retrieved March 04, 2016, from
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cruel-and-unusual-punishment
Cruel and Unusual Punishment. (2008). Retrieved March 4, 2016, from http://legaldictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Costs of the Death Penalty. (n.d.). Retrieved March 05, 2016, from
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

Arbitrariness. (n.d.). Retrieved March 05, 2016, from

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arbitrariness