5 Arguments For And Against The Death

Penalty
The existence of the death penalty in any society raises one underlying question: have we
established our justice systems out of a desire for rehabilitation, or out of a desire for retribution?
The lister has set out to examine both sides of the debate over the ethics and legality of capital
punishment, especially in the US, and chooses neither side in any of the following entries. They
are not presented in any meaningful order.
5A
Against: It Teaches the Condemned Nothing

What is the purpose of punishment? We take our lead from one major source, our parentsand
they no doubt took their lead from their own parents. When your young child emulates what he
just saw in a Rambo movie, you give him a stern lecture about what is real and what is not, what
is acceptable in real life and what is not. When your child tries some crazy acrobatic move off a
piece of furniture and hurts himself, you might spank him to be sure that he remembers never to
do it again.

So when the child grows up, breaks into a home, and steals electronics, he gets caught and goes
to prison. His time in prison is meant to deprive him of the freedom to go where he wants
anywhere in the world, and to do what he wants when he wants. This is the punishment, and
most people do learn from it. In general, no one wants to go back. But if that child grows up
and murders someone for their wallet or just for fun, and they are in turn put to death, they are
taught precisely nothing, because they are no longer alive to learn from it. We cannot
rehabilitate a person by killing him or her.
5B
For: It is the Ultimate Warning

Nevertheless, if would-be criminals know undoubtedly that they will be put to death should they
murder with premeditation, very many of them are much less inclined to commit murder.
Whether or not would-be criminals are wary of committing the worst crime is an important
and probably impossiblequestion to answer. Murder still happens very frequently. So some
criminals disregard this warning for various reasons. But the fact does remain that many
criminals who ride the fence on committing murder ultimately decide to spare the victims life.
In a larger sense, capital punishment is the ultimate warning against all crimes. If the criminal
knows that the justice system will not stop at putting him to death, then the system appears more
draconian to him. Hence, he is less inclined to break and enter. He may have no intention of
killing anyone in the process of robbing them, but is much more apprehensive about the
possibility if he knows he will be executed. Thus, there is a better chance that he will not break
and enter in the first place.

4A
Against: It Does Not Dissuade

If the foreknowledge of any punishment is meant to dissuade the criminal from committing the
crime, why do people still murder others? The US had a 2012 murder rate of 4.8 victims per
100,000meaning that nearly 15,000 people were victims of homicide that year. Capital
punishment does not appear to be doing its job; it doesnt seem to be changing every criminals
mind about killing innocent people. If it does not dissuade, then it serves no purpose. The
warning of life in prison without parole must equally dissuade criminals.
4B
For: It Provides Closure for Victims

There are many victims of a single murder. The criminal gets caught, tried, and convicted, and it
is understood that the punishment will be severe. But the person he has killed no longer has a
part to play in this. Unfortunately, the murderer has deprived his family and friends of a loved
one. Their grief begins with the murder. It may not end with the murderers execution, but the
execution does engender a feeling of relief at no longer having to think about the ordeala
feeling which often fails to arise while the murderer still lives on.
A system in place for the purpose of granting justice cannot do so for the surviving victims,
unless the murderer himself is put to death.
3A
Against: It Is Hypocritical

It is strange that a nation would denounce the practice of murder by committing the very same
act. By doing so, were essentially championing the right to life by taking it from others. True
as a whole, we are not murderers, and understandably refuse to be placed in the same category as
someone like Ted Bundy. But to many opponents of the death penalty, even Ted Bundy should
have been given life without parole. The fact that he murdered at least thirty peoplefor the
mere reason that he enjoyed doing ithas no bearing on the hypocrisy, the flagrant dishonesty,
of the declaration that such a person deserves to be killed because he had no right to kill.
If the goal of any punishment, as stated above, is to teach us those things we should not do, then
the justice system should more adequately teach the criminality of killing by refusing to partake
in it.
3B
For: It Is All That Would-be Criminals Fear

If you read about Bundys life in prison, waiting nine years for his execution, you will see that
the man exhausted every single legal point he and his lawyers could think of, all in an attempt to
spare him execution. He defended himself in prison interviews by blaming pornography for
causing his uncontrollable teenage libido, and for causing him to think of women as objects and
not humans. He attempted to have his death sentence commuted to life without parole by
explaining that it was all pornographys fault, and that had it never existed, he would have been a
good person.
When that didnt work, he pretended to come clean and tell police where the bodies of unfound
victims were, so that their families could have closure. He never once admitted that he was a bad
person, and just before his execution, he claimed that he hadnt done anything wrong. It was
obvious that he feared being put to death. He did his best to avert it.
This means that he did not fear life in prisonat least not as much as he feared capital
punishment. He had many opportunities to kill himself in his cell, but he did not. He might have
done it a month before his execution, when all hope for clemency was gonebut he was afraid
of death. How many would-be murderers have turned away at the last second purely out of fear
of the executioners needle?
2A
Against: It Is Always Cruel

In the end, though, death is always at least a little painful. Perhaps the only truly peaceful way to
go is while asleepbut no one has ever come back to say that this didnt hurt. If your heart
stops while you sleep, it is certainly possible that your brain will recognize a problem and wake

you up at the very moment when it is too late. So what we cannot help but let Nature do, we
ought not to force on others for any reason. If we do so, it might be fair to say that we lawabiding people, who embody the justice system, are guilty of equal cruelty towards criminals
who commit murder. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for one,
dictates that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment.
In the US, there are five legal methods of execution: lethal injection, electrocution, firing squad,
hanging, and gassing. These are all intended to be as painless as possible, but they all run the
risk of accidents. John Wayne Gacy, who was not afraid of death, was executed via lethal
injectionthe most efficient, risk-free method. Yet his death did not go as planned.
The sodium thiopental entered his bloodstream successfully and put him to sleep. The
pancuronium bromide was then administered successfully to paralyze his diaphragm. This
would cause asphyxiation if the next chemical, potassium chloride, were not immediately
administered to stop the heart. But the potassium chloride had congealed in its tube before Gacy
was brought into the room. He was unconscious and unable to breathe for several minutes while
the last drugs tube was changed. His death took eighteen minutes, instead of the usual seven.
And whether or not he was in great pain is impossible to determine.
2B
For: It Is Not Always Cruel

Its true that cruelty should not be legally toleratedand the five methods listed above are very
efficient in killing the condemned before he or she is able to feel it. Granted, we are not able to
ask the dead whether or not they felt their necks snap, or the chemicals burn inside thembut
modern American executions very rarely go awry. It does happen, but the reported accidents
since 1976 number about ten nationwide, out of 1,328.
When the condemned is fastened into the electric chair, one of the conductors is strapped
securely around the head with the bare metal flush against the shaved and wet scalp. This
permits the electricity to be conducted directly into the brain, shutting it off more quickly than
the brain can register pain.
Hanging causes death by snapping the neck of the condemned around the second vertebrae
instantly shutting off the brains ability to communicate with the rest of the body, and causing the
heart to stop within seconds.
The firing squad involves five men shooting the heart of the condemned with high-powered
rifles. The heart is completely destroyed and unconsciousness follows within seconds.
The gas chamber is now no longer forced on the condemned, because it frequently appeared to
cause more pain than was expected or acceptable. The gas is usually hydrogen cyanide, which
inhibits mitochondrial respiration in every cell of the entire body, theoretically shutting off the
brain like a light switch. But it requires that the condemned breathe deeply.
1A
Against: Prison Is Hell on Earth

Consider a pedophile who kills an infant girl by raping her. There is an unwritten code of
honor in prisons that virtually requires inmates to kill such offenders. Probably half of
Americas prisoners were in some way abused as children, and harbor a seething hatred for those
who abuse children. The murdering pedophile is given the death penalty, but will probably
spend ten years beforehand in prison. He will most likely be housed in solitary confinement for
his own protection, but there are frequently holes in such protection, and the inmates may find
their way to him. And if this happens, pedophiles are often gang-raped, castrated, beaten to
death, stabbed, and sometimes even beheaded before guardswho may deliberately ignore the
scenecan save them.
Most prisoners consider each other to be in the same predicament, and treat each other quite well
in general. But they are still in prison, and despair about their lack of freedom. What is life like
for Zacarias Moussaoui, the member of the September 11 hijacking teams who got caught a
month before the attack? A single juror saved him from death. He has, since 2006, been
incarcerated for twenty-three hours per day in a tiny concrete cell, with one hour of daily
exercise in an empty concrete swimming pool; he has no access to other inmates, and only rare
contact with guards, who say nothing to him; he can see nothing of the outside world except a
tiny sliver of skyand his will be his life. Capital punishment is an unnecessary threat.
1B
For: It Is the Best Answer to Murder

The justice system basically attempts to mete out punishment that fits the crime. Severe crimes
result in imprisonment. Petty larceny is not treated with the severity that is meted to grand
theft auto, and the latter, consequently, receives more time in prison. So if severebut non-

lethalviolence toward another is found deserving of life without parole, then why should
premeditated homicide be given the very same punishment? This fact might induce a would-be
criminal to go ahead and kill the victim he has already mugged and crippled. Why would it
matter, after all? His sentence could not get any worse.
If murder is the willful deprivation of a victims right to life, then the justice systems willful
deprivation of the criminals right to the same iseven if overly severea punishment which
fits the most severe crime that can be committed. Without capital punishment, it could be argued
that the justice system makes no provision in response to the crime of murder, and thus provides
no justice for the victim.

Top 10 Pros and Cons

Should the death penalty be allowed?

The PRO and CON statements below give a five minute introduction to the death penalty debate.
(Read more information about our one star

to five star

Theoretical Credibility System)

1. Morality

6. Cost of Death vs. Life in Prison

2. Constitutionality

7. Race

3. Deterrence

8. Income Level

4. Retribution

9. Attorney Quality

5. Irrevocable Mistakes

10. Physicians at Execution

PRO Death Penalty

CON Death Penalty

1. Morality

PRO: "The crimes of rape, torture, treason,

kidnapping, murder, larceny, and perjury pivot on
a moral code that escapes apodictic [indisputably
true] proof by expert testimony or otherwise. But
communities would plunge into anarchy if they
could not act on moral assumptions less certain
than that the sun will rise in the east and set in

CON: "Ultimately, the moral question surrounding

capital punishment in America has less to do with
whether those convicted of violent crime deserve
to die than with whether state and federal
governments deserve to kill those whom it has
imprisoned. The legacy of racial apartheid, racial
bias, and ethnic discrimination is unavoidably

the west. Abolitionists may contend that the death

penalty is inherently immoral because
governments should never take human life, no
matter what the provocation. But that is an article
of faith, not of fact. The death penalty honors
human dignity by treating the defendant as a free
moral actor able to control his own destiny for
good or for ill; it does not treat him as an animal
with no moral sense."

evident in the administration of capital

punishment in America. Death sentences are
imposed in a criminal justice system that treats
you better if you are rich and guilty than if you are
poor and innocent. This is an immoral condition
that makes rejecting the death penalty on moral
grounds not only defensible but necessary for
those who refuse to accept unequal or unjust
administration of punishment."

Bruce Fein, JD
Constitutional Lawyer and General Counsel to
the Center for Law and Accountability
"Individual Rights and Responsibility - The Death
Penalty, But Sparingly," www.aba.org
June 17, 2008

Bryan Stevenson, JD
Professor of Law at New York University School
of Law
"Close to Death: Reflections on Race and Capital
Punishment in America," from Debating the
Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital
Punishment? The Experts on Both Sides Make
Their Best Case
2004

2. Constitutionality

PRO: "Simply because an execution method may

result in pain, either by accident or as an
inescapable consequence of death, does not
establish the sort of 'objectively intolerable risk of
harm' [quoting the opinion of the Court from
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U. S. 825, 842, 846
(1994)] that qualifies as cruel and unusual...
Kentucky has adopted a method of execution
believed to be the most humane available, one it
shares with 35 other States... Kentucky's decision
to adhere to its protocol cannot be viewed as
probative of the wanton infliction of pain under the
Eighth Amendment... Throughout our history,
whenever a method of execution has been
challenged in this Court as cruel and unusual, the
Court has rejected the challenge. Our society has
nonetheless steadily moved to more humane
methods of carrying out capital punishment."
Baze v. Rees (529 KB)
US Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief
Justice John G. Roberts
Apr. 16, 2008

CON: "Death is... an unusually severe

punishment, unusual in its pain, in its finality, and
in its enormity... The fatal constitutional infirmity in
the punishment of death is that it treats 'members
of the human race as nonhumans, as objects to
be toyed with and discarded. [It is] thus
inconsistent with the fundamental premise of the
Clause that even the vilest criminal remains a
human being possessed of common human
dignity.' [quoting himself from Furman v. Georgia,
408 U.S. 238, 257 (1972)] As such it is a penalty
that 'subjects the individual to a fate forbidden by
the principle of civilized treatment guaranteed by
the [Clause].' [quoting C.J. Warren from Trop v.
Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101 (1958)] I therefore would
hold, on that ground alone, that death is today a
cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the
Clause... I would set aside the death sentences
imposed... as violative of the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments."
William J. Brennan, JD
Justice of the US Supreme Court
Dissenting opinion in Gregg v. Georgia (347 KB)
July 2, 1976

3. Deterrence

PRO: "Common sense, lately bolstered by

statistics, tells us that the death penalty will deter
murder... People fear nothing more than death.
Therefore, nothing will deter a criminal more than
the fear of death... life in prison is less feared.
Murderers clearly prefer it to execution -otherwise, they would not try to be sentenced to
life in prison instead of death... Therefore, a life
sentence must be less deterrent than a death
sentence. And we must execute murderers as
long as it is merely possible that their execution
protects citizens from future murder."
Ernest Van Den Haag, PhD
Late Professor of Jurisprudence at Fordham
University
"For the Death Penalty," New York Times
Oct. 17, 1983

CON: "[T]here is no credible evidence that the

death penalty deters crime more effectively than
long terms of imprisonment. States that have
death penalty laws do not have lower crime rates
or murder rates than states without such laws.
And states that have abolished capital
punishment show no significant changes in either
crime or murder rates. The death penalty has no
deterrent effect. Claims that each execution
deters a certain number of murders have been
thoroughly discredited by social science
research."
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
"The Death Penalty: Questions and Answers,"
ACLU.org
Apr. 9, 2007

4. Retribution

PRO: "Society is justly ordered when each person

receives what is due to him. Crime disturbs this
just order, for the criminal takes from people their
lives, peace, liberties, and worldly goods in order
to give himself undeserved benefits. Deserved
punishment protects society morally by restoring
this just order, making the wrongdoer pay a price
equivalent to the harm he has done. This is
retribution, not to be confused with revenge,
which is guided by a different motive. In
retribution the spur is the virtue of indignation,
which answers injury with injury for public good...
Retribution is the primary purpose of just
punishment as such... [R]ehabilitation, protection,
and deterrence have a lesser status in
punishment than retribution."
J. Budziszewski, PhD
Professor of Government and Philosophy at the
University of Texas at Austin
"Capital Punishment: The Case for Justice,"
OrthodoxyToday.org
Aug./Sep. 2004

CON: "Retribution is just another word for

revenge, and the desire for revenge is one of the
lowest human emotions perhaps sometimes
understandable, but not really a rational response
to a critical situation. To kill the person who has
killed someone close to you is simply to continue
the cycle of violence which ultimately destroys the
avenger as well as the offender. That this
execution somehow give 'closure' to a tragedy is
a myth. Expressing ones violence simply
reinforces the desire to express it. Just as
expressing anger simply makes us more angry. It
does not drain away. It contaminates the
otherwise good will which any human being
needs to progress in love and understanding."
Raymond A. Schroth, SJ
Jesuit Priest and Community Professor of the
Humanities at St. Peter's College
Email to ProCon.org
Sep. 5, 2008

5. Irrevocable Mistakes

PRO: "...No system of justice can produce results

which are 100% certain all the time. Mistakes will

CON: "...Since the reinstatement of the modern

death penalty, 87 people have been freed from

be made in any system which relies upon human

testimony for proof. We should be vigilant to
uncover and avoid such mistakes. Our system of
justice rightfully demands a higher standard for
death penalty cases. However, the risk of making
a mistake with the extraordinary due process
applied in death penalty cases is very small, and
there is no credible evidence to show that any
innocent persons have been executed at least
since the death penalty was reactivated in 1976...
The inevitability of a mistake should not serve as
grounds to eliminate the death penalty any more
than the risk of having a fatal wreck should make
automobiles illegal..."
Steven D. Stewart, JD
Prosecuting Attorney for Clark County Indiana
Message on the Clark County Prosecutor website
accessed
Aug. 6, 2008

death row because they were later proven

innocent. That is a demonstrated error rate of 1
innocent person for every 7 persons executed.
When the consequences are life and death, we
need to demand the same standard for our
system of justice as we would for our airlines... It
is a central pillar of our criminal justice system
that it is better that many guilty people go free
than that one innocent should suffer... Let us
reflect to ensure that we are being just. Let us
pause to be certain we do not kill a single
innocent person. This is really not too much to
ask for a civilized society."
Russ Feingold, JD
US Senator (D-WI)
introducing the "National Death Penalty
Moratorium Act of 2000"
April 26, 2000

6. Cost of Death vs. Life in Prison

PRO: "Many opponents present, as fact, that the

cost of the death penalty is so expensive (at least
$2 million per case?), that we must choose life
without parole ('LWOP') at a cost of $1 million for
50 years. Predictably, these pronouncements
may be entirely false. JFA [Justice for All]
estimates that LWOP cases will cost $1.2 million$3.6 million more than equivalent death penalty
cases. There is no question that the up front costs
of the death penalty are significantly higher than
for equivalent LWOP cases. There also appears
to be no question that, over time, equivalent
LWOP cases are much more expensive... than
death penalty cases. Opponents ludicrously claim
that the death penalty costs, over time, 3-10
times more than LWOP."
Dudley Sharp
Director of Death Penalty Resources at Justice
for All
"Death Penalty and Sentencing Information,"
Justice for All website
Oct. 1, 1997

CON: "In the course of my work, I believe I have

reviewed every state and federal study of the
costs of the death penalty in the past 25 years.
One element is common to all of these studies:
They all concluded that the cost of the death
penalty amounts to a net expense to the state
and the taxpayers. Or to put it differently,the
death penalty is clearly more expensive than a
system handling similar cases with a lesser
punishment. [It] combines the costliest parts of
both punishments: lengthy and complicated death
penalty trials, followed by incarceration for life...
Everything that is needed for an ordinary trial is
needed for a death penalty case, only more so:
More pre-trial time...
More experts...
Twice as many attorneys...
Two trials instead of one will be conducted: one
for guilt and one for punishment.
And then will come a series of appeals during
which the inmates are held in the high security of
death row."
Richard C. Dieter, MS, JD

Executive Director of the Death Penalty

Information Center
Testimony to the Judiciary Committee of the
Colorado State House of Representatives
regarding "House Bill 1094 - Costs of the Death
Penalty and Related Issues"
Feb. 7, 2007

7. Race

PRO: "[T]he fact that blacks and Hispanics are

charged with capital crimes out of proportion to
their numbers in the general population may
simply mean that blacks and Hispanics commit
capital crimes out of proportion to their numbers.
Capital criminals dont look like America... No one
is surprised to find more men than women in this
class. Nor is it a shock to find that this group
contains more twenty-year-olds than
septuagenarians. And if as the left tirelessly
maintains poverty breeds crime, and if as it
tiresomely maintains the poor are
disproportionately minority, then it must follow
as the left entirely denies that minorities will be
'overrepresented' among criminals."
Roger Clegg, JD
General Counsel at the Center for Equal
Opportunity
"The Color of Death: Does the Death Penalty
Discriminate?, National Review Online
June 11, 2001

CON: "Despite the fact that African Americans

make up only 13 percent of the nations
population, almost 50 percent of those currently
on the federal death row are African American.
And even though only three people have been
executed under the federal death penalty in the
modern era, two of them have been racial
minorities. Furthermore, all six of the next
scheduled executions are African Americans. The
U.S. Department of Justices own figures reveal
that between 2001 and 2006, 48 percent of
defendants in federal cases in which the death
penalty was sought were African Americans the
biggest argument against the death penalty is that
it is handed out in a biased, racially disparate
manner."
National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People (NAACP)
"NAACP Remains Steadfast in Ending Death
Penalty & Fighting Injustice in America's Justice
System, NAACP website
June 28, 2007

8. Income Level

PRO: "The next urban legend is that of the

threadbare but plucky public defender fighting
against all odds against a team of sleek, heavilyfunded prosecutors with limitless resources. The
reality in the 21st century is startlingly different...
the past few decades have seen the
establishment of public defender systems that in
many cases rival some of the best lawyers
retained privately... Many giant silk-stocking law
firms in large cities across America not only
provide pro-bono counsel in capital cases, but
also offer partnerships to lawyers whose sole job

CON: "Who pays the ultimate penalty for crimes? The

poor. Who gets the death penalty? The poor. After all
the rhetoric that goes on in legislative assemblies, in
the end, when the net is cast out, it is the poor who are
selected to die in this country. And why do poor people
get the death penalty? It has everything to do with the
kind of defense they get. Money gets you good
defense. That's why you'll never see an O.J. Simpson
on death row. As the saying goes: 'Capital punishment
means them without the capital get the punishment.'"

is to promote indigent capital defense."

Joshua Marquis, JD
District Attorney of Clatsop County, Oregon
"The Myth of Innocence, Journal of Criminal Law
and Criminology
Mar. 31, 2005

Helen Prejean, MA
Anti-death penalty activist and author of Dead
Man Walking
"Would Jesus Pull the Switch?, Salt of the Earth
1997

9. Attorney Quality

PRO: "Defense attorneys... routinely file all

manner of motions and objections to protect their
clients from conviction. Attorneys know their trial
tactics will be thoroughly scrutinized on appeal,
so every effort is made to avoid error, ensuring
yet another level of protection for the defendant.
They [death penalty opponents]... have painted a
picture of incompetent defense lawyers, sleeping
throughout the trial, or innocent men being
executed. Their accusations receive wide media
coverage, resulting in a near-daily onslaught on
the death penalty. Yet, through all the hysteria,
jurors continue to perform their responsibilities
and return death sentences."

CON: "[A] shocking two out of three death penalty

convictions have been overturned on appeal
because of police and prosecutorial misconduct,
as well as serious errors by incompetent courtappointed defense attorneys with little experience
in trying capital cases. How can we contend that
we provide equal justice under the law when we
do not provide adequate representation to the
poor in cases where a life hangs in the balance?
We, the Congress, must bear our share of
responsibility for this deplorable situation. In
short, while others, like Governor Ryan in Illinois,
have recognized the flaws in the death penalty,
the Congress still just doesn't get it. This system
is broken."

California District Attorneys Association (CDAA)

"Prosecutors' Perspective on California's Death
Penalty, www.cdaa.org
Mar. 2003

John Conyers, Jr., JD

US Congressman (D-MI)
Hearing for the Innocence Protection Act of 2000
before the Subcommittee on Crime of the
Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives
June 20, 2000

10. Physicians at Executions

PRO: "Accepting capital punishment in principle

means accepting it in practice, whether by the
hand of a physician or anyone else... If one finds
the practice too brutal, one must either reject it in
principle or seek to mitigate its brutality. If one
chooses the latter option, then the participation of
physicians seems more humane than delegating
the deed to prison wardens, for by condoning the
participation of untrained people who could inflict
needless suffering that we physicians might have
prevented, we are just as responsible as if we
had inflicted the suffering ourselves. The AMA

CON: "The American Medical Association's policy

is clear and unambiguous... requiring physicians
to participate in executions violates their oath to
protect lives and erodes public confidence in the
medical profession. A physician is a member of a
profession dedicated to preserving life... The use
of a physician's clinical skill and judgment for
purposes other than promoting an individual's
health and welfare undermines a basic ethical
foundation of medicine first, do no harm. The
guidelines in the AMA Code of Medical Ethics
address physician participation in executions

[American Medical Association] position should

be changed either to permit physician
participation or to advocate the abolition of capital
punishment. The hypocritical attitude of 'My
hands are clean let the spectacle proceed' only
leads to needless human suffering."
Bruce E. Ellerin, MD, JD

Doctor of Oncology Radiation at Sierra

Providence Health Network
Response letter to the New England Journal
of Medicine regarding an article titled "When
Law and Ethics Collide Why Physicians
Participate in Executions," by Atul Gawande,
MD
July 6, 2006
PRO Death Penalty

involving lethal injection. The ethical opinion

explicitly prohibits selecting injection sites for
executions by lethal injection, starting intravenous
lines, prescribing, administering, or supervising
the use of lethal drugs, monitoring vital signs, on
site or remotely, and declaring death."
American Medical Association (AMA)
"AMA: Physician Participation in Lethal Injection
Violates Medical Ethics," press release from the
AMA website
July 17, 2006

CON Death Penalty

Sembilan orang terpida kasus narkoba segera dieksekusi mati. Di tengah gencarnya
protes dari negara asal para terpidana, Presiden Jokowi menegaskan sikapnya
bahwa pelaku peredaran narkoba harus dihukum mati.
Jokowi berbicara kepada wartawan di Gedung TVRI, Jl Gerbang Pemuda, Senayan,
Jakarta, Senin (27/4/2015). Dia kemudian membandingkan 9 terpidana mati yang
akan dieksekusi dengan jumlah korban narkoba di Indonesia yang sudah mati siasia.
"Setiap hari ada 50 generasi muda kita mati karena narkoba. Kalau dihitung satu
tahun, ada 18 ribu orang. " tutur Jokowi.
"Itu yang harus dijelaskan pers. Jangan yang dijelaskan yang dieksekusi, jelasin
dong nama-nama 18 ribu itu siapa saja. Tulis! Setiap tahun ada 18 ribu orang, siapa,
siapa, siapa?! Baru merasakan! Kedua, pergi ke tempat rehabilitasi, yang bergulingguling meregang, yang berteriak-teriak, sana cari informasi mengenai itu. Keluarkan
(tinjauannya), jangan dibandingkan satu dengan 18 ribu itu!" tutur Jokowi dengan
nada tinggi.
Jokowi tegas akan menegakkan hukuman mati kepada para terpidana narkoba itu
tanpa perlu mengulang pernyataannya. Menurutnya, itu adalah kedaulatan hukum.
Soal keberatan terhadap eksekusi mati dari pihak negara lain, Jokowi menyatakan
Indonesia tetap serius memerangi narkoba. "Kita serius, perang terhadap narkoba,"
ucapnya.
Berikut 9 terpidana mati yang akan dieksekusi dalam waktu dekat:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

WN
WN
WN
WN
WN
WN
WN
WN
WN

Filipina, Mary Jane Fiesta Veloso

Australia, Myuran Sukumaran
Australia, Andrew Chan
Ghana, Martin Anderson
Nigeria, Raheem Agbaje
Indonesia, Zainal Abidin
Brazil, Rodrigo Gularte
Nigeria, Sylvester Obiekwe Nwolise
Nigeria, Okwudili Oyatanze.

Which countries have the death penalty?

The United States is one of 58 nations that still practices capital punishment, along with
Ethiopia, Afghanistan and North Korea. Japan and India are the only other major democratic
nations that carry out this form of punishment.
Of the 198 countries recognized by the Death Penalty Information Center, 98 forbid capital
punishment. Seven of those countries allow it only in the case of "exceptional crimes," such as
one committed under military law. Thirty-five others allow it for "ordinary" crimes such as
murder, but have not carried out an execution in at least 10 years and "are believed to have a
policy or established practice of not carrying out executions," according to the center's website.
How many states use other methods of execution, aside from lethal
injection?
Lethal injection is the only means of execution for 20 of the 32 states that practice capital
punishment. It is the primary option in all of those states but four. Some states allow alternative
execution methods, should the state not have the means to administer the lethal drugs or if an
inmate requests a different punishment.

Florida, South Carolina and Virginia allow inmates to choose between lethal injection and
electrocution.

Missouri allows death by lethal gas although the statute doesn't specify who gets to
choose the method.

Inmates on death row in Alabama can request the electric chair.

In California and Wyoming, they can ask for lethal gas.

If there's nobody to administer a lethal injection in New Hampshire, prisoners can be

hanged.

Death row inmates in Washington can ask for the gallows, too.

Oklahoma allows electrocution should lethal injection ever become unconstitutional.

Utah has a similar clause, but favors a firing squad instead of the chair.

How does lethal injection actually cause death?

Lethal injection usually starts by rendering a person unconscious with a powerful anesthetic,
followed by a cocktail of drugs that halt key bodily functions. In theory, the inmate shouldn't feel
any pain.
However, that didn't appear to be the case in Oklahoma.
In Tuesday's botched execution, the drug cocktail given to Lockett was a mix of midazolam,
vecuronium bromide and potassium chloride.
The process, in Lockett's execution, began with midazolam.
Midazolam can be used to produce loss of consciousness before and during surgery, according to
Mayo Clinic's website, a non-profit medical research organization and practice based in
Minnesota, Arizona and Florida. "This may allow the patient to withstand the stress of being in
the intensive care unit."
Ten minutes after the midazolam injection, Lockett was declared unconscious, and a doctor
began to pump the other two drugs into the prisoner's body.
Vecuronium bromide is a neuromuscular blocking agent, according to the website of the FDA.
Like midazolam, it is also used in hospitals and can be administered in tandem with general
anesthesia as an additional relaxant. Surgeons can use it to relax a patient's muscles during
surgery, especially when they are required to stick a tube down a patient's throat, the FDA says.
When used for lethal injection, the dosage is increased, making it enough to stop a patient's
breathing.
Potassium chloride is then used to stop the heart.
Though potassium chloride can be taken in supplements by an otherwise healthy person with low
levels of potassium, a high dosage of this chemical compound is deadly.
This method of execution is essentially death by overdose, and the latter two drugs can
reportedly cause extreme pain if the person taking them is not unconscious.
This particular cocktail has been used in Florida along with Oklahoma, though the dose
of midazolam which was supposed to render Lockett unconscious is much higher in
Florida prisons.
Jakarta, CNN Indonesia -- Indonesia tengah menjadi sorotan dunia lantaran
rencana eksekusi mati terhadap beberapa tersangka kasus narkotika, di antaranya
adalah dua orang anggota Bali Nine. Namun Indonesia bukan satu-satunya yang

masih menerapkan hukuman mati, bahkan negara ini tergolong sedikit

mengeksekusi narapidana tahun lalu.
Menurut catatan tahunan Amnesty International soal hukuman mati 2014 yang
dirilis awal bulan ini, angka eksekusi memang turun 22 persen dibanding tahun
sebelumnya, namun jumlah vonis mati meningkat 28 persen.
Catatan Amnesty menunjukkan bahwa pada 2014 sedikitnya ada 607 orang
dieksekusi mati di seluruh dunia, menurun jika dibandingkan tahun 2013 yang
berjumlah 778 orang. Sementara jumlah narapidana yang divonis mati tahun lalu
meningkat menjadi sedikitnya 2,466 orang di seluruh dunia.
Hingga akhir 2014, Amnesty memperkirakan sedikitnya 19.094 orang menunggu
eksekusi mati di seluruh dunia.
Pilihan Redaksi

Raheem Salami, Patah Hati Jelang Menit Akhir Menatap Dunia

Pesan Kakak Andrew Chan untuk Jokowi: Jangan Bunuh Orang

Jelang Eksekusi Mati, Gularte Yakin Dapat Bantuan Malaikat

Silvester, Raja Narkotik yang Menanti Regu Tembak

Tiongkok, Belarus dan Vietnam, tidak termasuk dalam data eksekusi mati Amnesty karena
negara-negara tersebut menganggapnya sebagai rahasia negara sehingga tidak dipublikasikan.
Negara terbanyak mengeksekusi mati tahanan adalah Iran dengan sedikitnya 289 orang, kedua
Irak 61 orang, Arab Saudi 90 orang dan Amerika Serikat 35 orang. Berdasarkan informasi yang
diterima, Amnesty menduga Tiongkok telah mengeksekusi ribuan tahanan setiap tahunnya,
jumlah yang lebih besar dibandingkan total tereksekusi mati di dunia.
Tiga negara - Iran, Irak dan Arab Saudi - mencakup 72 persen dari 607 eksekusi. Diduga, jumlah
tereksekusi mati di Iran lebih banyak lagi karena ada yang tidak secara resmi diumumkan.
Indonesia menurut catatan Amnesty telah mengeksekusi mati enam orang tahun lalu. Di antara
kejahatan yang dihukum mati di Indonesia adalah pelanggaran hukum terkait pengedaran
narkoba. Menurut Amnesty, kejahatan narkoba bukan merupakan pembunuhan sehingga tidak
masuk "kejahatan paling serius" yang diatur oleh Pasal 6 Kovenan Hak Sipil dan Politik
Internasional, ICCPR, dengan demikian tidak layak dihukum mati.
Selain Indonesia yang menerapkan hukuman mati untuk pengedar narkoba adalah Tiongkok,
Iran, Malaysia, Arab Saudi, Sri Lanka, Singapura, Thailand, Uni Emirat Arab dan Vietnam.

Mengutip pemerintah Indonesia, Amnesty menuliskan bahwa ada 64 tersangka kasus narkoba
yang ditolak grasinya, termasuk duo Bali Nine, Andrew Chan dan Myuran Sukumaran. Amnesty
melaporkan, sebanyak 20 tahanan akan dieksekusi di Indonesia pada 2015.
Padahal, lanjut Amnesty, pemerintah Indonesia sangat gencar meminta pengampunan terhadap
warganya yang divonis mati di luar negeri, berhasil menyelamatkan 240 WNI dari hukuman
mati, 46 orang di antaranya tahun lalu. Saat ini diperkirakan ada 229 WNI yang terancam
eksekusi di Tiongkok, Arab Saudi, Malaysia, Singapura, Laos dan Vietnam.
Beberapa metode dilakukan untuk mengeksekusi mati, di antaranya adalah pemancungan (Arab
Saudi), gantung (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Mesir, Iran, Irak, Jepang, Yordania, Malaysia,
Pakistan, Palestina, Singapura, Sudan), Suntik mati (Tiongkok, AS, Vietnam), dan tembak
(Indonesia, Belarus, Tiongkok, Guinea Ekuator, Korea Utara, Palestina, Arab Saudi, Somalia,
Taiwan, UEA, Yaman).
Hanya dua negara yang melakukan eksekusi di depan publik, yaitu Iran dan Arab Saudi.
Amnesty mendesak negara-negara di dunia untuk menghapuskan hukuman mati. Hal yang sama
tahun lalu juga disampaikan oleh Sekretaris Jenderal PBB Ban Ki Moon akhir tahun lalu.
"Kita harus kuat menentang bahwa hukuman mati tidak adil dan tidak sesuai dengan hak asasi
manusia," ujar Ban. (den)
Should the death penalty be abolished?

Should the death penalty be abolished?

64% Say Yes

36% Say No

It doesn't make sense.

It is a barbaric way to deal with murder. Morally what makes us better if we kill those
who kill? It hypocritical. Plus it is an easy way out for the criminals. It would rather have
then suffer in jail for the rest of their life without parole. Usually murders don't fear death
so this type of punishment is not a deterrent. Not only that but the injection method is one
of the most painful ways to do it, it just collapses your lungs before anybody has a chance

to yell in pain. Plus the injection chemicals are becoming more and more rare, thus
making it more expensive with each injection. In fact it is cheaper to keep an inmate in
prison for life without parole than it is to kill them. It doesn't make sense to spend more
money on a morally questionable act that has shown no signs of determent.

To easy for the criminals.

They should make them suffer just as much if not more than the person they attacked or
attempted to attack. Then let them rot in jail. No second chances, no do-overs. They
criminals made the decision to attack that person. Whether innocent or guilty, that's up to
the law to decide. Not the common man. We can just make our opinions.

The Bible doesn't allow people to be killed

When we read through the Bible, killing people is a sin. In Old Testament times, it is
mentioned that any one who commits adultery should be stoned to death. I am a christian
and i disagree with death penalty. I see so many people have been killed wrongly. The
real criminal is not killed though.

To kill a killer for killing is the dumbest thing ever.

We don't have it in Europe and the EU try to promote it to the rest of the world for a good
reason. It's cruel and dramatic. Turning it around and saying that cruel people deserve it is
just hypocritical. If we kill killers we're just as bad. Secondly, the government shouldn't
have the right over people's lives. It's too much power.

Eighth Amendment and the constitution

The Eighth Amendment in the Bill of Rights clearly states Excessive bail shall not be
required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Some
may say the death penalty is justice but it is actually just revenge to the murderer. If
killing people isn't a "cruel and unusual punishment", what is?

Death penalty is a human rights violation.

With the death penalty, you are deliberately deciding punishment by death for a criminal.
This is the same concept as eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth. It violates human rights
by the government forcing the death of a human. Death by capital punishment is not
justice meaning not giving them what's rightfully theirs. I fully support imprisonment
instead. God says that we shall not decide the length of another human's life according to
the 10 Commandments. In conclusion, the death penalty is killing.

Death Penalty Should be Abolished.

Death penalty should be abolished. Every year, thousands of people are put on death row
for a crime they didn't even commit. There's no way of knowing if they actually did or
not. Is it worth the risk? It can be seen as a cruel and unsual punishment, which goes
against one of our amendments in the Constitution. Crime will always be apart of the
world and there will be better ways to handle it.

I think it should.
It should only really be used for crimes such as 9/11 and people like Bin Laden or the
Yorkshire Ripper.
But otherwise it should not be brought back and it should be banned in America for an
indefinite time.
Police should use guns if needed, if they were dealing with a gun crime. Or in other
words, I think that we should get rid of them altogether.

It's barbaric, overexpensive and innocents often die

If you trade an eye for an eye the whole world will be blind - literally, what gives the
justice system the right to take a human life? Thousands of people in the history of the
US have been exonerated after death. I say that for one innocent to have to die is one too
many. The death sentence is incredibly expensive and a waste of information on killers
and how they operate as well. Advocates of the death sentence seem to tend to appeal to
the emotions but at the end of the day this biblical type of revenge that seems so popular
is never satisfying, it's just another death among thousands.

It is cruel and unusual punishment.

We can't justify killing someone if we are punctuating it by saying killing is wrong. From
a young age we teach our children that two wrongs don't make a right, yet the death
penalty is trying to do exactly that. Costs are also prohibitive. It costs more to have
someone go through the death penalty process than to keep him in jail for the rest of his
life.

No it should not
Death penalty is not a cruel punishment and it's certainly not unusual. The death penalty
is only a cruel punishment if it is too harsh a punishment for the crime. Should vandalism
be execution worthy? No. That's unnecessary. Should Mass murderers and rapists who
are insane and cannot contribute positively to society and threaten other people be
executed? Absolutely. It should be used to eradicate criminals who cannot be good
members of society and we should not have to pay for them to stay in jail where they will
only cause more problems.

Killers should be killed.

Anyone can escape from prison. Anyone. Justice for the victims and kill the killers.
Society needs protection from these barbarians. Life Without Parole or LWOP is not a
justification and a replacement for the death penalty. It costs more for life in a prison than
10 years and a lethal injection. Say no to the liberal left do-gooders.

stop being hypocrites

People say that the death penalty is cruel and unfair to take away another person's life. It
is "inhumane." So it is inhuman to take away one's life - yet it is ok to let them suffer
much more painfully for a long time rotting in jail? Isn't that inhumane?

This Isn't About What You Think

Many of those Against the Death Penalty state that it doesn't Deter crime...that is, having
the death penalty in a state doesn't lower the crime rate. I maintain, the Death Penalty
isn't about Deterring Crime...it' is preventing 1 criminal from repeating the Same Crime
while saving society the Fear and Anxiety of wondering if that criminal will ever be
paroled. For example, Mason. How much money have we spent keeping this 1 criminal

incarcerated for how long? Can anyone estimate? Each year he's denied parole. But what
if next year some parole panel decides enough is enough, let him go and try to reintegrate
into society. Do you want Manson moving next door to you and your family, your
children, your teenage daughter? If you say that's OK with you, that Manson moves into
your apartment complex next door to YOUR 15-20 year old daughter, then I say, Go for
it, give the man Parole. But if you say "NO", like any Sane human being, then explain to
me how not executing him has, in any way, helped our society. Explain to me how it's
helped Him, for that matter. Keeping him alive has neither enriched our society as a
people, nor has it helped the Man himself in anyway. He contributes Nothing to Society.
He gains nothing by continued existence. Is it not cruel and unusual torture to keep a man
locked up for decades with no Hope at all of redemption, parole or salvation? And if you
won't let him go, what do you gain by keeping him alive? If he is dead, he is no longer
suffering, and society is relieved of the anxiety and Fear of him committing the same
crime again.

Punishment for crime involving death

If a criminal suspect takes a human beings precious life, he should be punished for it. If
we did not have the death penalty in our goverment, there would be a major increase in
the rate of crimes per year. The only way to stop criminals from doing these terrible
crimes is to show them the side affects for doing them.

We should keep it
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the words a jury has to swear by so we shouldn't ban it
because some people cant tell a guilty person from an innocent one. We just need to have
evidence that points no other way. Its not like we execute people who shop lift we
execute people who rape and murder, and commit unthinkable crimes that are a Danger to
society, I will pay to be sure my family and I are safe.

The death penalty has its uses.

Consider mass-murderers, serial rapists and other criminals. These criminals are often
punished with life-sentences or stays at psychiatric wards (which are infamous for almost
never releasing 'patients'). How is the death penalty crueler than the thought of living in a
cell for the remainder of your life? The death penalty, when used in conjunction with
rehabilitation and other methods of dealing with criminals, can be an effective deterrent,

and can also bring peace to victims' families. The death penalty holds an important role in
the criminal justice system.

No. It would make no sense.

Murderers deserve to die for murdering. An eye for an eye. The only way I would support
abolishing the death penalty is if instead we lock murderers up in a dungeon like cage and
let them rot for the rest of their lives in absolute misery. Murderers need to pay for
murdering. I think a person should be killed in the exact same way that he murdered.

"Didn't know what he was doing."

To argue my point, I'm going to eleborate on an example.
In 2008 a man by the name of Vince Lee was on a greyhound bus in Canada, had a
psychotic episode, took out a knife and decapitated the man next to him, a man by the
name of Tim Maclean. Yes; decapitated. He took the guys head off, and if that wasn't
enough he started eating parts of the man, and when police arrived, he tauntingly held up
the head to the bus window.
This man was found, ''not criminally responsible'' by the justice system, who said he was
schizophrenic and ''not aware of what he was doing was wrong'', and he was locked in a
mental institution.
In 2012, only four years later, he is now permitted to go on ''short, supervised outings''
into the community.
I have always been on the fence about the death penalty, as there are many cases where
you cannot be entirely sure; there are no witnesses but the evidence points to it possibly
being this one person guilty of murder, or it was sort of an accident, or it's kind of
justifiable even though it's still illegal. SO they go to jail for the rest of their lives and I'm
fine with that.
However, when you have a bus-full of witnesses, when you have a man who's so insane
that he didn't realise taking a guys head off and eating parts of him was wrong, why
wouldn't you just put the man down? We do it with dogs all the time, like when a dog
thinks a kids face would make a good meal, and proceeds to eat it.
For some reason we have decided that human lives are worth more even when that
human is a sick, twisted, warped shadow of one. Why? Why is a man who snapped and
was ''mentally ill and didn't know what he was doing'' worth more than a dog who "didn;t
know what he was doing"

Crime Crime every where

I think capital should not be banned. As it is the thing from which some people afraid not
all that they fear of to be hanged or be fined.
My first decision for supporting the death penalty is it's correlation to the crime rate in a
country where it exists.
My second argument for keeping capital punishment is that it can provide a safer
environment for us.
Istilah Hak Asasi Manusia (HAM) dalam bahasa Belanda disebut dengan
Mensenrecht/Menselijk Rechten, dalam bahasa Perancis disebut dengan Les Droits L
Homme, dalam bahasa Inggris disebut dengan Human Right.
Sebelumnya, Kepala Badan Narkotika Nasional Komisaris Jenderal Anang Iskandar
mengatakan bahwa eksekusi hukuman mati terhadap terpidana kasus narkoba tak
melanggar HAM, karena berdasarkan perintah pengadilan. Dikutip Tempo, Anang,
berkilah, pelanggaran HAM terjadi bila eksekusi mati hanya atas perintah perseorangan.

It helps the victims' families achieve closure.

Point
The death penalty can also help provide closure for the victim's family and friends, who will no
longer have to fear the return of this criminal into society. They will not have to worry about
parole or the chance of escape, and will thus be able to achieve a greater degree of closure.
Mary Heidcamp, a Chicago woman whose mother's killer faced the death penalty before the
State Governor commuted the sentences to life in prison, stated 'we were looking forward to the
death penalty. I'm just so disappointed in the system'1. Other victims' families deemed the
decision a 'mockery', that 'justice is not done'1.

Counterpoint
Many victims' families oppose the death penalty1. While some might take comfort in knowing
the guilty party has been executed, others might prefer to know that the person is suffering in jail,
or might not feel comfortable knowing that the state killed another human being on behalf of the
victim.
Furthermore, Stanford University psychiatrist David Spiegel believes 'witnessing executions not
only fails to provide closure but often causes symptoms of acute stress. Witness trauma is not far
removed from experience it'2.
Even if it was the case that capital punishment helped the victims' families, sentencing is simply
not about what the victims' families want. Punishment should be proportionate to the crime

committed, and not the alleged preferences of victims' families.

The death penalty deters crime.

Point
The state has a responsibility to protect the lives of innocent citizens, and enacting the death
penalty may save lives by reducing the rate of violent crime.
The reasoning here is simple- fear of execution can play a powerful motivating role in
convincing potential murderers not to carry out their acts. While the prospect of life in prison
may be frightening, surely death is a more daunting prospect. Thus, the risk of execution can
change the cost-benefit calculus in the mind of murderers-to be so that the act is no longer
worthwhile for them1.
Numerous studies support the deterrent effect of the death penalty. A 1985 study by Stephen K.
Layson at the University of North Carolina showed that a single execution deters 18 murders.
Another influential study, which looked at over 3,054 counties over two decades, further found
support for the claim that murder rates tend to fall as executions rise2.
On top of this, there are ways to make the death penalty an even more effective deterrent than it
is today. For instance, reducing the wait time on death row prior to execution can dramatically
increase its deterrent effect in the United States1.
In short, the death penalty can- and does- save the lives of innocent people.

Counterpoint
There are many reasons to doubt the deterrent effect of the death penalty. For one thing, many
criminals may actually find the prospect of the death penalty less daunting (and thus, less
effective as a deterrent) than spending the rest of their lives suffering in jail. Death by execution
is generally fairly quick, while a lifetime in prison can be seen as a much more intensive
punishment.
Moreover, even if criminals preferred life in prison to the death penalty, it's not clear that a
harsher punishment would effectively deter murders. Heinous crimes often occur in the heat of
the moment, with little consideration for their legal repercussions1.
Further, for a deterrent to be effective, it would have to be immediate and certain. This is not the
case with the death penalty cases, which often involve prolonged appeals and sometimes end in
acquittals2.
Finally, the empirical evidence regarding the deterrence effect of the death penalty is at best
mixed. Many of the studies that purport to show the deterrence effect are flawed, because the
impact of capital punishment cannot be disentangled from other factors such as broader social
trends, economic factors and demographic changes in a region2.
Other studies have even suggested a correlation between the death penalty and higher crime
rates. States such as Texas and Oklahoma, which have very high execution rates, also have

higher crime rates than most states that do not have the death penalty2.

Execution prevents the accused from committing further crimes.

Point
The death penalty is the only way to ensure that criminals do not escape back into society or
commit further crimes while in prison.
While in prison, it is not uncommon for those receiving life in jail sentences to commit homicide,
suicide, or other crimes while in jail, since there is no worse punishment they can receive1.
Putting dangerous murderers in prison endangers other prisoners and the guards who must watch
them.
The other advantage of execution is that it prevents the possibly of an escape from prison. Even
the highest security detention facilities can have escapees2. Thus, the only way to be absolutely
certain that a convicted murder can no longer hurt others is to execute them.

Counterpoint
Escapes from prison, though sensationalized by the media, are relatively rare occurrences1. In
1998, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 6,530 people escaped or were AWOL from
state prisons. Given a total prison population of 1,100,224 state prisoners, that figure represents
just over half a percent of the total prison population.
On top of this, it is not impossible for people to commit further crimes while on death row. Those
sentenced to death may be even more eager to escape prior to their execution than those awaiting
life in prison, so it is not true that execution necessarily prevents further crimes.

The death penalty should apply as punishment for first-degree murder; an eye for
an eye.

Point
The worst crimes deserve the most severe sanctions; first-degree murder involves the intentional
slaughter of another human being. There are crimes that are more visceral, but there are none that
are more deadly. Such a heinous crime can only be punished, in a just and fair manner, with the
death penalty.
As Time put it, 'there is a zero-sum symmetry to capital punishment that is simple and satisfying
enough to feel like human instinct: the worst possible crime deserves no less than the worst
possible
punishment'1.Human life is sacred; there must be a deterrent mechanism in place that ensures that
those violating that fundamental precept are punished. Capital punishment symbolizes the value
and importance placed upon the maintenance of the sanctity of human life. Any lesser sentence

would fail in this duty.

Counterpoint
There is no fairness or consistency in an eye-for-an-eye attitude towards justice. Justice should
remain above the petty retributive justice that marks street or community warfare, whereby the
murder of one family member justifies a revenge attack against the murderers' family.
Furthermore, it is inconsistent with other areas of the law. As New York University Law
Professor Anthony Amsterdam notes, 'we don't burn arsonists' houses'1. Capital punishment
'attempts to vindicate one murder by committing a second murder. And the second murder is
more reprehensible because it is officially sanctioned and done with great ceremony in the name
of us all'1.
The Christian logic of an eye for an eye is undermined not merely by the Pope himself, who
advocated 'clemency, or pardon, for those condemned to death', but scripture itself, which
preaches mercy just as vigorously as it does retribution1.

Execution helps alleviate the overcrowding of prisons.

Point
The death penalty can help ease the problem of overcrowded prisons in many countries, where
keeping people for life in prison contributes to expensive and at times unconstitutional
overcrowding1.
In 2011, California prison overcrowding was so problematic that a district court panel ordered
authorities to release or transfer more than 33,000 inmates. This decision was held up by the U.S.
Supreme Court, which argued that the conditions in the overcrowded prisons are so
overwhelming that they constitute cruel and unusual punishment2. Similarly, in the United
Kingdom two thirds of prisons in England and Wales have been deemed overcrowded3.
As such, the death penalty may be preferable to life in prison since it helps alleviate a pressing
problem in the criminal justice system. It is better to execute those who deserve it than to be
forced to release dangerous offenders into society because prisons are overcrowded by people
serving life sentences.

Counterpoint
Executions are rare enough that they do not have a significant impact on prison populations,
which are largely composed of people who would not be eligible for the death penalty. Even if
large numbers of people could be executed instead of serving prisons, resources would not be
saved due to the expenses associated with death penalty cases1.
Instead of execution, there are better, more humane solutions for alleviating overcrowded

prisons. One could increase community service requirements, build more prisons, or target
broader crime reduction programs2.
Principally, whether or not a convict deserves to live or die should not be contingent on factors as
arbitrary as the availability of prison spots in a given region. Justice is about the proportionality
of punishment to crime, not of prisoners to prisons, so it is not fair to use crowded prisons as a
justification for the death penalty.
State-sanctioned killing is wrong.

Point
The state has no right to take away the life of its citizens. By executing convicts, the government
is effectively condoning murder, and devaluing human life in the process. Such acts violate the
right to life as declared in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights1 and the right not to be
subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment2.
On top of this, the state forces executioners to actively participate in the taking of a life, which
can be unduly traumatizing and leave permanent psychological scars. Thus, a humane state
cannot be one that exercises the death penalty.

Counterpoint
A just state regularly abrogates people's rights when they intrude upon the rights of others. By
sentencing people to prison, for instance, the state takes away rights to movement, association,
and property rights from convicted criminals. The right to life should be no different. When you
commit certain heinous crimes, you forgo your right to life. This does not devalue life, but rather
affirms the value of the innocent life taken by the criminal. Certain crimes are so heinous that the
only proportionate sentence is execution.
As for the executioners themselves, there are methods of execution that involve multiple
executioners which might reduce the associated psychological burdens. At any rate, no one is
forced to become an executioner, and people who choose to take on that role do so with full
awareness of the risks involved.

The death penalty is a financial burden on the state.

Point
Capital punishment imposes a very high cost on taxpayers, which far outweighs the costs of
alternative punishments such as life in prison1.
A single capital litigation can cost over $1 million as a result of the intensive jury selection,
trials, and long appeals process that are required by capital cases2. The cost of death row presents
an additional financial burden associated with the death penalty.
Savings from abolishing the death penalty in Kansas, for example, are estimated at $500,000 for
every case in which the death penalty is not sought1.

In California, death row costs taxpayers $114 million a year beyond the cost of imprisoning
convicts for life2.
This money could instead be better spent on measures that are of much greater benefit to the
criminal justice system- greater policing, education, and other crime-preventing measures that
are far more cost-effective.

Counterpoint
Justice is priceless. Even if the death penalty is more expensive than other punishments, that is
not sufficient reason to ban it. Fair and proportionate punishments should be independent of
financial considerations.
Further, there are ways to make the death penalty less expensive than it is today. Shortening the
appeals process or changing the method of execution could reduce its costs1.
1 "Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011.

Wrongful convictions are irreversible.

Point
There are an alarming number of wrongful convictions associated with the death penalty1. So far,
more than 130 people who had been sentenced to death have been exonerated2. In many cases,
unlike those who have been sentenced to life in prison, it is impossible to compensate executed
prisoners should they later be proven innocent.
The state should not gamble with people's lives. The chance of wrongful execution alone should
be enough to prove the death penalty is not justifiable.

Counterpoint
Wrongful convictions are particularly rare in cases where the death penalty is sentenced. The
lengthy and thorough procedures associated with death penalty cases offer sufficient protection
against wrongful convictions. If there is any reasonable doubt that a person is guilty, they will
not receive the sentence.
Finally, even in cases where there is a wrongful conviction, there is generally a lengthy appeals
process for them to make their case. For example, in 1993, Alex Hernandez was sentenced to
death for the kidnapping, rape and murder of a 10-year old girl in Chicago; he was released a
number of years later due to his lawyers proving both a paucity of evidence and the confession of
her actual killer1. As a result, very few innocent people receive the death penalty, and the legality
of capital punishment does not increase wrongful or prejudicial convictions2.

The death penalty can produce irreversible miscarriages of justice.

Point
Juries are imperfect1, and increasing the stakes of the verdict can pervert justice in a couple of
ways.
First, implementation of the death penalty is often impacted by jury members' social, genderbased or racial biases2, disproportionately impacting certain victimized groups in society and
adding a certain arbitrariness to the justice system. A 2005 study found that the death penalty was
three to four times more common amongst those who killed whites than those who killed African
Americans or Latinos, while those who kill women are three and a half times more likely to be
executed than those who kill men2.
Regional differences in attitudes towards the death penalty can also introduce elements of
randomness into sentencing. For instance, in Illinois, a person is five times more likely to get a
death sentence for first-degree murder in a rural area than in Cook County2.
Finally, the fear of wrongful execution can also pervert justice by biasing juries towards
returning an innocent verdict when they would otherwise be deemed guilty3. When they are told
that the consequence of a guilty verdict is death, they are likely to find some kind of reasonable
doubt to avoid being responsible for the death of that criminal. This means that more criminals
who would've otherwise been convicted do not get charged. In this sense the death penalty can
pervert the goals of justice and prolong the difficult process for victims' families.

Counterpoint
The fact that juries are prone to several biases is not a flaw inherent or unique to capital
punishment.
If there are racial or prejudicial issues in sentencing, these are likely to present themselves just as
often in cases where the punishment is life in prison. It is equally problematic for people to die or
spend decades in jails for crimes they did not commit. These errors suggest that the judicial
process may need some reform, not that the death penalty should be abolished. Implementation
errors that result in discrimination can and should be corrected.
Moreover, there is little evidence that these biases are even present in most death penalty cases1.
A study funded by the National Institute of Justice in the US found that differences in sentencing
for white and non-white victims disappeared when the heinousness of the crimes were factored
into the study1. Thus, factors relating to the crime, not the race, of the accused accounted for
some of the purported racial disparities that were found.
Finally, jurors must be "death- qualified" in such cases, meaning that they are comfortable
sentencing someone to death should the fact indicate their guilt2. Thus, it is unlikely that many
jurors will abstain from a guilty verdict because they are uncomfortable with the death penalty.