for or against the death penalty essay

Death Penalty: Arguments For and Against Essay

Introduction, arguments against death penalty, arguments for death penalty, death penalty policies around the world.

The area of the current research concerns the death penalty and whether it might be abolished in the future. Various experts have argued against the lethal sentence policies claiming that they are unethical, barbaric, and economically unfavorable. However, in the academic field, some authorities continue to justify this punishment method. The current research reviews various articles and websites concerning the lethal sentence controversies and establishes the correlation between the existing works. As a result, the main flaws within the present scholarship are the unresolved issue of whether death penalty policies are effective or not and whether there are any benefits to society from the lethal sentence. The authorities do not seem to find a consensus on this issue, but there is a prospect that this problem will be resolved in future works.

The first argument against the lethal sentence is a lack of deterrence among criminals. According to Amnesty International Australia (2019), there is no evidence that the prospect of death prevents potential perpetrators. Furthermore, some authorities state that the lethal sentence does not decline the number of crimes and is only used as an instrument of vengeance (Amnesty International, 1997). Another reason to cancel the death penalty is the unnecessary brutality of the process. Despite the introduction of less gruesome methods of killing, such as lethal injection, Deshwal (2017) claims that “sterilized and depersonalized methods of execution do not eliminate the brutality of the penalty” (para. 5). Finally, the majority of the population generally believes that lethal sentences are merely unethical and should be abolished (Jouet, 2020). Ultimately, most experts refer to the mentioned-above arguments to illustrate the obligation to cancel death penalties.

On the contrary, some authorities believe that the lethal sentence is necessary and is a useful tool to prevent potential crimes. The first argument supporting this perspective is retribution for the illegal activity. From the philosophical point of view, as mentioned by Immanuel Kant, the murderer should atone by giving up their own life (Flanders, 2013). Another reason for the lethal sentence is the probability that the perpetrator would kill again after prison. According to Radelet and Borg (2000), after the cancellation of most death penalties in America in 1972, about one percent of the criminals killed again. It might seem as an insignificant number, but ultimately the lethal sentence would have prevented it. As previously mentioned, the death penalty policy does not have evidence to deter people from criminal activity. However, public opinion frequently differs from the statistics gathered by experts. According to Seal (2017), throughout the twentieth-century people extensively considered that the death penalty is obligatory to prevent illegal activity. Therefore, some individuals would only feel safe and secure if the government practices the lethal sentence.

The attitude toward the death penalty varies depending on the regions of the world. In America, the lethal sentence for most crimes was canceled in 1972 by the Supreme Court (Nice, 1992). However, in multiple other countries, the death penalty policies still exist. For instance, while some regions ease restrictions and reduce the number of crimes that are punishable with the lethal sentence, China does the opposite (Lehmann, 2012). Up until the twenty-first century, the Chinese government has purposefully used the death penalty even for non-violent crimes, such as theft or bribes (Lehmann, 2012). Nevertheless, the overall number of countries that have abolished the lethal sentence is continually growing (Hood & Hoyle, 2009). Ultimately, the perspectives regarding the death penalty depend on the region, but more and more governments reject this type of punishment.

Summing up, the opinions about the death penalty vary vastly depending on the countries and the academic experts. Overall, this subject is extremely complicated since the effectiveness of death penalties in terms of criminal deterrence and prevention of potential crimes is almost impossible to prove, and, thus, various perspectives emerge. However, despite the complexity and sensitivity of the topic, most countries have discontinued this policy due to ethical and economical reasons.

Amnesty International. (1997). The death penalty: Criminality, justice and human rights . Refworld. Web.

Amnesty International Australia. (2019). Five reasons to abolish death penalty . Web.

Deshwal, S. (n.d.). Death penalty: Contemporary issues . Indian National Bar Association. Web.

Flanders, C. (2013). The case against the case against the death penalty. New Criminal Law Review: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal, 16 (4), 595-620.

Hood, R., & Hoyle, C. (2009). Abolishing the death penalty worldwide: The impact of a “new dynamic”. Crime and Justice, 38 (1), 1-63.

Jouet, M. (2020). Death penalty abolitionism from the enlightenment to modernity. American Journal of Comparative Law . Web.

Lehmann, E. (2012). The death penalty in a changing socialist state: Reflections on ‘modernity’ from the Mao Era to contemporary China. Honor Theses, 6 , 1-86.

Nice, C. D. (1992). The States and the death penalty. The Western Political Quarterly, 45 (4), 1037-1048.

Radelet, M. L., & Borg, M. J. (2000). The changing nature of death penalty debates. Annual Review of Sociology, 26 , 43-61.

Seal, L. (2017). Perceptions of safety, fear and social change in the public’s pro-death penalty discourse in mid twentieth-century Britain. Crime, Histoire & Sociétés / Crime, History & Societies, 21 (1), 1-24.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, July 12). Death Penalty: Arguments For and Against. https://ivypanda.com/essays/death-penalty-arguments-for-and-against/

"Death Penalty: Arguments For and Against." IvyPanda , 12 July 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/death-penalty-arguments-for-and-against/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Death Penalty: Arguments For and Against'. 12 July.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Death Penalty: Arguments For and Against." July 12, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/death-penalty-arguments-for-and-against/.

1. IvyPanda . "Death Penalty: Arguments For and Against." July 12, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/death-penalty-arguments-for-and-against/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Death Penalty: Arguments For and Against." July 12, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/death-penalty-arguments-for-and-against/.

• Cancel Culture: The Adverse Impacts
• The Concept of “Cancel Culture”
• Cancel Culture Meaning and Role in Modern Society
• Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished in China?
• The History of Death Penalty
• Death Penalty: Every For and Against
• Race Matters, Cancel Culture, and “Boys Go to Jupiter”
• The Cons of the Current Drugs Used for Lethal Injection
• Deterrence theory and scientific findings on the deterrence value of severe punishment
• Argumentative Paper on the Pros of the Death Penalty
• Justifications for Capital Punishment
• The Significance of Capital Punishment in the UAE
• “Dead Man Walking” by Sister Helen Prejean
• The Legality and the Processes of the Death Penalty
• Criminal Sentencing and the Eighth Amendment

5 Death Penalty Essays Everyone Should Know

Capital punishment is an ancient practice. It’s one that human rights defenders strongly oppose and consider as inhumane and cruel. In 2019, Amnesty International reported the lowest number of executions in about a decade. Most executions occurred in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Egypt . The United States is the only developed western country still using capital punishment. What does this say about the US? Here are five essays about the death penalty everyone should read:

“When We Kill”

By: Nicholas Kristof | From: The New York Times 2019

In this excellent essay, Pulitizer-winner Nicholas Kristof explains how he first became interested in the death penalty. He failed to write about a man on death row in Texas. The man, Cameron Todd Willingham, was executed in 2004. Later evidence showed that the crime he supposedly committed – lighting his house on fire and killing his three kids – was more likely an accident. In “When We Kill,” Kristof puts preconceived notions about the death penalty under the microscope. These include opinions such as only guilty people are executed, that those guilty people “deserve” to die, and the death penalty deters crime and saves money. Based on his investigations, Kristof concludes that they are all wrong.

Nicholas Kristof has been a Times columnist since 2001. He’s the winner of two Pulitizer Prices for his coverage of China and the Darfur genocide.

“An Inhumane Way of Death”

By: Willie Jasper Darden, Jr.

Willie Jasper Darden, Jr. was on death row for 14 years. In his essay, he opens with the line, “Ironically, there is probably more hope on death row than would be found in most other places.” He states that everyone is capable of murder, questioning if people who support capital punishment are just as guilty as the people they execute. Darden goes on to say that if every murderer was executed, there would be 20,000 killed per day. Instead, a person is put on death row for something like flawed wording in an appeal. Darden feels like he was picked at random, like someone who gets a terminal illness. This essay is important to read as it gives readers a deeper, more personal insight into death row.

Willie Jasper Darden, Jr. was sentenced to death in 1974 for murder. During his time on death row, he advocated for his innocence and pointed out problems with his trial, such as the jury pool that excluded black people. Despite worldwide support for Darden from public figures like the Pope, Darden was executed in 1988.

“We Need To Talk About An Injustice”

By: Bryan Stevenson | From: TED 2012

This piece is a transcript of Bryan Stevenson’s 2012 TED talk, but we feel it’s important to include because of Stevenson’s contributions to criminal justice. In the talk, Stevenson discusses the death penalty at several points. He points out that for years, we’ve been taught to ask the question, “Do people deserve to die for their crimes?” Stevenson brings up another question we should ask: “Do we deserve to kill?” He also describes the American death penalty system as defined by “error.” Somehow, society has been able to disconnect itself from this problem even as minorities are disproportionately executed in a country with a history of slavery.

Bryan Stevenson is a lawyer, founder of the Equal Justice Initiative, and author. He’s argued in courts, including the Supreme Court, on behalf of the poor, minorities, and children. A film based on his book Just Mercy was released in 2019 starring Michael B. Jordan and Jamie Foxx.

“I Know What It’s Like To Carry Out Executions”

By: S. Frank Thompson | From: The Atlantic 2019

In the death penalty debate, we often hear from the family of the victims and sometimes from those on death row. What about those responsible for facilitating an execution? In this opinion piece, a former superintendent from the Oregon State Penitentiary outlines his background. He carried out the only two executions in Oregon in the past 55 years, describing it as having a “profound and traumatic effect” on him. In his decades working as a correctional officer, he concluded that the death penalty is not working . The United States should not enact federal capital punishment.

Frank Thompson served as the superintendent of OSP from 1994-1998. Before that, he served in the military and law enforcement. When he first started at OSP, he supported the death penalty. He changed his mind when he observed the protocols firsthand and then had to conduct an execution.

“There Is No Such Thing As Closure on Death Row”

By: Paul Brown | From: The Marshall Project 2019

This essay is from Paul Brown, a death row inmate in Raleigh, North Carolina. He recalls the moment of his sentencing in a cold courtroom in August. The prosecutor used the term “closure” when justifying a death sentence. Who is this closure for? Brown theorizes that the prosecutors are getting closure as they end another case, but even then, the cases are just a way to further their careers. Is it for victims’ families? Brown is doubtful, as the death sentence is pursued even when the families don’t support it. There is no closure for Brown or his family as they wait for his execution. Vivid and deeply-personal, this essay is a must-read for anyone who wonders what it’s like inside the mind of a death row inmate.

Paul Brown has been on death row since 2000 for a double murder. He is a contributing writer to Prison Writers and shares essays on topics such as his childhood, his life as a prisoner, and more.

You may also like

15 Quotes Exposing Injustice in Society

14 Trusted Charities Helping Civilians in Palestine

The Great Migration: History, Causes and Facts

Social Change 101: Meaning, Examples, Learning Opportunities

Rosa Parks: Biography, Quotes, Impact

Top 20 Issues Women Are Facing Today

Top 20 Issues Children Are Facing Today

15 Root Causes of Climate Change

15 Facts about Rosa Parks

Abolitionist Movement: History, Main Ideas, and Activism Today

The Biggest 15 NGOs in the UK

15 Biggest NGOs in Canada

About the author, emmaline soken-huberty.

Emmaline Soken-Huberty is a freelance writer based in Portland, Oregon. She started to become interested in human rights while attending college, eventually getting a concentration in human rights and humanitarianism. LGBTQ+ rights, women’s rights, and climate change are of special concern to her. In her spare time, she can be found reading or enjoying Oregon’s natural beauty with her husband and dog.

Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty

Click the buttons below to view arguments and testimony on each topic.

The death penalty deters future murders.

Society has always used punishment to discourage would-be criminals from unlawful action. Since society has the highest interest in preventing murder, it should use the strongest punishment available to deter murder, and that is the death penalty. If murderers are sentenced to death and executed, potential murderers will think twice before killing for fear of losing their own life.

For years, criminologists analyzed murder rates to see if they fluctuated with the likelihood of convicted murderers being executed, but the results were inconclusive. Then in 1973 Isaac Ehrlich employed a new kind of analysis which produced results showing that for every inmate who was executed, 7 lives were spared because others were deterred from committing murder. Similar results have been produced by disciples of Ehrlich in follow-up studies.

Moreover, even if some studies regarding deterrence are inconclusive, that is only because the death penalty is rarely used and takes years before an execution is actually carried out. Punishments which are swift and sure are the best deterrent. The fact that some states or countries which do not use the death penalty have lower murder rates than jurisdictions which do is not evidence of the failure of deterrence. States with high murder rates would have even higher rates if they did not use the death penalty.

Ernest van den Haag, a Professor of Jurisprudence at Fordham University who has studied the question of deterrence closely, wrote: “Even though statistical demonstrations are not conclusive, and perhaps cannot be, capital punishment is likely to deter more than other punishments because people fear death more than anything else. They fear most death deliberately inflicted by law and scheduled by the courts. Whatever people fear most is likely to deter most. Hence, the threat of the death penalty may deter some murderers who otherwise might not have been deterred. And surely the death penalty is the only penalty that could deter prisoners already serving a life sentence and tempted to kill a guard, or offenders about to be arrested and facing a life sentence. Perhaps they will not be deterred. But they would certainly not be deterred by anything else. We owe all the protection we can give to law enforcers exposed to special risks.”

Finally, the death penalty certainly “deters” the murderer who is executed. Strictly speaking, this is a form of incapacitation, similar to the way a robber put in prison is prevented from robbing on the streets. Vicious murderers must be killed to prevent them from murdering again, either in prison, or in society if they should get out. Both as a deterrent and as a form of permanent incapacitation, the death penalty helps to prevent future crime.

Those who believe that deterrence justifies the execution of certain offenders bear the burden of proving that the death penalty is a deterrent. The overwhelming conclusion from years of deterrence studies is that the death penalty is, at best, no more of a deterrent than a sentence of life in prison. The Ehrlich studies have been widely discredited. In fact, some criminologists, such as William Bowers of Northeastern University, maintain that the death penalty has the opposite effect: that is, 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 little or no weight on deterrence as a serious justification for its continued use.

States in the United States that do not employ the death penalty generally have lower murder rates than states that do. The same is true when the U.S. is compared to countries similar to it. The U.S., with the death penalty, has a higher murder rate than the countries of Europe or Canada, which do not use the death penalty.

The death penalty is not a deterrent because most people who commit murders either do not expect to be caught or do not carefully weigh the differences between a possible execution and life in prison before they act. Frequently, murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively. As someone who presided over many of Texas’s executions, former Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox has remarked, “It is my own experience that those executed in Texas were not deterred by the existence of the death penalty law. I think in most cases you’ll find that the murder was committed under severe drug and alcohol abuse.”

There is no conclusive proof that the death penalty acts as a better deterrent than the threat of life imprisonment. A 2012 report released by the prestigious National Research Council of the National Academies and based on a review of more than three decades of research, concluded that studies claiming a deterrent effect on murder rates from the death penalty are fundamentally flawed. A survey of the former and present presidents of the country’s top academic criminological societies found that 84% of these experts rejected the notion that research had demonstrated any deterrent effect from the death penalty .

Once in prison, those serving life sentences often settle into a routine and are less of a threat to commit violence than other prisoners. Moreover, most states now have a sentence of life without parole. Prisoners who are given this sentence will never be released. Thus, the safety of society can be assured without using the death penalty.

Ernest van den Haag Professor of Jurisprudence and Public Policy, Fordham University. Excerpts from ” The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense,” (Harvard Law Review Association, 1986)

“Execution of those who have committed heinous murders may deter only one murder per year. If it does, it seems quite warranted. It is also the only fitting retribution for murder I can think of.”

“Most abolitionists acknowledge that they would continue to favor abolition even if the death penalty were shown to deter more murders than alternatives could deter. Abolitionists appear to value the life of a convicted murderer or, at least, his non-execution, more highly than they value the lives of the innocent victims who might be spared by deterring prospective murderers.

Deterrence is not altogether decisive for me either. I would favor retention of the death penalty as retribution even if it were shown that the threat of execution could not deter prospective murderers not already deterred by the threat of imprisonment. Still, I believe the death penalty, because of its finality, is more feared than imprisonment, and deters some prospective murderers not deterred by the thought of imprisonment. Sparing the lives of even a few prospective victims by deterring their murderers is more important than preserving the lives of convicted murderers because of the possibility, or even the probability, that executing them would not deter others. Whereas the life of the victims who might be saved are valuable, that of the murderer has only negative value, because of his crime. Surely the criminal law is meant to protect the lives of potential victims in preference to those of actual murderers.”

“We threaten punishments in order to deter crime. We impose them not only to make the threats credible but also as retribution (justice) for the crimes that were not deterred. Threats and punishments are necessary to deter and deterrence is a sufficient practical justification for them. Retribution is an independent moral justification. Although penalties can be unwise, repulsive, or inappropriate, and those punished can be pitiable, in a sense the infliction of legal punishment on a guilty person cannot be unjust. By committing the crime, the criminal volunteered to assume the risk of receiving a legal punishment that he could have avoided by not committing the crime. The punishment he suffers is the punishment he voluntarily risked suffering and, therefore, it is no more unjust to him than any other event for which one knowingly volunteers to assume the risk. Thus, the death penalty cannot be unjust to the guilty criminal.”

Full text can be found at PBS.org .

Hugo Adam Bedau (deceased) Austin Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, Tufts University Excerpts from “The Case Against The Death Penalty” (Copyright 1997, American Civil Liberties Union)

“Persons who commit murder and other crimes of personal violence either may or may not premeditate their crimes.

When crime is planned, the criminal ordinarily concentrates on escaping detection, arrest, and conviction. The threat of even the severest punishment will not discourage those who expect to escape detection and arrest. It is impossible to imagine how the threat of any punishment could prevent a crime that is not premeditated….

Most capital crimes are committed in the heat of the moment. Most capital crimes are committed during moments of great emotional stress or under the influence of drugs or alcohol, when logical thinking has been suspended. In such cases, violence is inflicted by persons heedless of the consequences to themselves as well as to others….

If, however, severe punishment can deter crime, then long-term imprisonment is severe enough to deter any rational person from committing a violent crime.

The vast preponderance of the evidence shows that the death penalty is no more effective than imprisonment in deterring murder and that it may even be an incitement to criminal violence. Death-penalty states as a group do not have lower rates of criminal homicide than non-death-penalty states….

On-duty police officers do not suffer a higher rate of criminal assault and homicide in abolitionist states than they do in death-penalty states. Between l973 and l984, for example, lethal assaults against police were not significantly more, or less, frequent in abolitionist states than in death-penalty states. There is ‘no support for the view that the death penalty provides a more effective deterrent to police homicides than alternative sanctions. Not for a single year was evidence found that police are safer in jurisdictions that provide for capital punishment.’ (Bailey and Peterson, Criminology (1987))

Prisoners and prison personnel do not suffer a higher rate of criminal assault and homicide from life-term prisoners in abolition states than they do in death-penalty states. Between 1992 and 1995, 176 inmates were murdered by other prisoners; the vast majority (84%) were killed in death penalty jurisdictions. During the same period about 2% of all assaults on prison staff were committed by inmates in abolition jurisdictions. Evidently, the threat of the death penalty ‘does not even exert an incremental deterrent effect over the threat of a lesser punishment in the abolitionist states.’ (Wolfson, in Bedau, ed., The Death Penalty in America, 3rd ed. (1982))

Actual experience thus establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the death penalty does not deter murder. No comparable body of evidence contradicts that conclusion.”

Click here for the full text from the ACLU website.

Retribution

A just society requires the taking of a life for a life.

When someone takes a life, the balance of justice is disturbed. Unless that balance is restored, society succumbs to a rule of violence. Only the taking of the murderer’s life restores the balance and allows society to show convincingly that murder is an intolerable crime which will be punished in kind.

Retribution has its basis in religious values, which have historically maintained that it is proper to take an “eye for an eye” and a life for a life.

Although the victim and the victim’s family cannot be restored to the status which preceded the murder, at least an execution brings closure to the murderer’s crime (and closure to the ordeal for the victim’s family) and ensures that the murderer will create no more victims.

For the most cruel and heinous crimes, the ones for which the death penalty is applied, offenders deserve the worst punishment under our system of law, and that is the death penalty. Any lesser punishment would undermine the value society places on protecting lives.

Robert Macy, District Attorney of Oklahoma City, described his concept of the need for retribution in one case: “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.”

Retribution is another word for revenge. Although our first instinct may be to inflict immediate pain on someone who wrongs us, the standards of a mature society demand a more measured response.

The emotional impulse for revenge is not a sufficient justification for invoking a system of capital punishment, with all its accompanying problems and risks. Our laws and criminal justice system should lead us to higher principles that demonstrate a complete respect for life, even the life of a murderer. Encouraging our basest motives of revenge, which ends in another killing, extends the chain of violence. Allowing executions sanctions killing as a form of ‘pay-back.’

Many victims’ families denounce the use of the death penalty. Using an execution to try to right the wrong of their loss is an affront to them and only causes more pain. For example, Bud Welch’s daughter, Julie, was killed in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Although his first reaction was to wish that those who committed this terrible crime be killed, he ultimately realized that such killing “is simply vengeance; and it was vengeance that killed Julie…. Vengeance is a strong and natural emotion. But it has no place in our justice system.”

The notion of an eye for an eye, or a life for a life, is a simplistic one which our society has never endorsed. We do not allow torturing the torturer, or raping the rapist. Taking the life of a murderer is a similarly disproportionate punishment, especially in light of the fact that the U.S. executes only a small percentage of those convicted of murder, and these defendants are typically not the worst offenders but merely the ones with the fewest resources to defend themselves.

Louis P. Pojman Author and Professor of Philosophy, U.S. Military Academy. Excerpt from “The Death Penalty: For and Against,” (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1998)

“[Opponents of the capital punishment often put forth the following argument:] Perhaps the murderer deserves to die, but what authority does the state have to execute him or her? Both the Old and New Testament says, “’Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord” (Prov. 25:21 and Romans 12:19). You need special authority to justify taking the life of a human being.

The objector fails to note that the New Testament passage continues with a support of the right of the state to execute criminals in the name of God: “Let every person be subjected to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment…. If you do wrong, be afraid, for [the authority] does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13: 1-4). So, according to the Bible, the authority to punish, which presumably includes the death penalty, comes from God.

But we need not appeal to a religious justification for capital punishment. We can site the state’s role in dispensing justice. Just as the state has the authority (and duty) to act justly in allocating scarce resources, in meeting minimal needs of its (deserving) citizens, in defending its citizens from violence and crime, and in not waging unjust wars; so too does it have the authority, flowing from its mission to promote justice and the good of its people, to punish the criminal. If the criminal, as one who has forfeited a right to life, deserves to be executed, especially if it will likely deter would-be murderers, the state has a duty to execute those convicted of first-degree murder.”

National Council of Synagogues and the Bishops’ Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops Excerpts from “To End the Death Penalty: A Report of the National Jewish/Catholic Consultation” (December, 1999)

“Some would argue that the death penalty is needed as a means of retributive justice, to balance out the crime with the punishment. This reflects a natural concern of society, and especially of victims and their families. Yet we believe that we are called to seek a higher road even while punishing the guilty, for example through long and in some cases life-long incarceration, so that the healing of all can ultimately take place.

Some would argue that the death penalty will teach society at large the seriousness of crime. Yet we say that teaching people to respond to violence with violence will, again, only breed more violence.

The strongest argument of all [in favor of the death penalty] is the deep pain and grief of the families of victims, and their quite natural desire to see punishment meted out to those who have plunged them into such agony. Yet it is the clear teaching of our traditions that this pain and suffering cannot be healed simply through the retribution of capital punishment or by vengeance. It is a difficult and long process of healing which comes about through personal growth and God’s grace. We agree that much more must be done by the religious community and by society at large to solace and care for the grieving families of the victims of violent crime.

Recent statements of the Reform and Conservative movements in Judaism, and of the U.S. Catholic Conference sum up well the increasingly strong convictions shared by Jews and Catholics…:

‘Respect for all human life and opposition to the violence in our society are at the root of our long-standing opposition (as bishops) to the death penalty. We see the death penalty as perpetuating a cycle of violence and promoting a sense of vengeance in our culture. As we said in Confronting the Culture of Violence: ‘We cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing.’ We oppose capital punishment not just for what it does to those guilty of horrible crimes, but for what it does to all of us as a society. Increasing reliance on the death penalty diminishes all of us and is a sign of growing disrespect for human life. We cannot overcome crime by simply executing criminals, nor can we restore the lives of the innocent by ending the lives of those convicted of their murders. The death penalty offers the tragic illusion that we can defend life by taking life.’1

We affirm that we came to these conclusions because of our shared understanding of the sanctity of human life. We have committed ourselves to work together, and each within our own communities, toward ending the death penalty.” Endnote 1. Statement of the Administrative Committee of the United States Catholic Conference, March 24, 1999.

The risk of executing the innocent precludes the use of the death penalty.

The death penalty alone imposes an irrevocable sentence. Once an inmate is executed, nothing can be done to make amends if a mistake has been made. There is considerable evidence that many mistakes have been made in sentencing people to death. Since 1973, over 180 people have been released from death row after evidence of their innocence emerged. During the same period of time, over 1,500 people have been executed. Thus, for every 8.3 people executed, we have found one person on death row who never should have been convicted. These statistics represent an intolerable risk of executing the innocent. If an automobile manufacturer operated with similar failure rates, it would be run out of business.

Our capital punishment system is unreliable. A study by Columbia University Law School found that two thirds of all capital trials contained serious errors. When the cases were retried, over 80% of the defendants were not sentenced to death and 7% were completely acquitted.

Many of the releases of innocent defendants from death row came about as a result of factors outside of the justice system. Recently, journalism students in Illinois were assigned to investigate the case of a man who was scheduled to be executed, after the system of appeals had rejected his legal claims. The students discovered that one witness had lied at the original trial, and they were able to find another man, who confessed to the crime on videotape and was later convicted of the murder. The innocent man who was released was very fortunate, but he was spared because of the informal efforts of concerned citizens, not because of the justice system.

In other cases, DNA testing has exonerated death row inmates. Here, too, the justice system had concluded that these defendants were guilty and deserving of the death penalty. DNA testing became available only in the early 1990s, due to advancements in science. If this testing had not been discovered until ten years later, many of these inmates would have been executed. And if DNA testing had been applied to earlier cases where inmates were executed in the 1970s and 80s, the odds are high that it would have proven that some of them were innocent as well.

Society takes many risks in which innocent lives can be lost. We build bridges, knowing that statistically some workers will be killed during construction; we take great precautions to reduce the number of unintended fatalities. But wrongful executions are a preventable risk. By substituting a sentence of life without parole, we meet society’s needs of punishment and protection without running the risk of an erroneous and irrevocable punishment.

There is no proof that any innocent person has actually been executed since increased safeguards and appeals were added to our death penalty system in the 1970s. Even if such executions have occurred, they are very rare. Imprisoning innocent people is also wrong, but we cannot empty the prisons because of that minimal risk. If improvements are needed in the system of representation, or in the use of scientific evidence such as DNA testing, then those reforms should be instituted. However, the need for reform is not a reason to abolish the death penalty.

Besides, many of the claims of innocence by those who have been released from death row are actually based on legal technicalities. Just because someone’s conviction is overturned years later and the prosecutor decides not to retry him, does not mean he is actually innocent.

If it can be shown that someone is innocent, surely a governor would grant clemency and spare the person. Hypothetical claims of innocence are usually just delaying tactics to put off the execution as long as possible. Given our thorough system of appeals through numerous state and federal courts, the execution of an innocent individual today is almost impossible. Even the theoretical execution of an innocent person can be justified because the death penalty saves lives by deterring other killings.

Gerald Kogan, Former Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Excerpts from a speech given in Orlando, Florida, October 23, 1999 “[T]here is no question in my mind, and I can tell you this having seen the dynamics of our criminal justice system over the many years that I have been associated with it, [as] prosecutor, defense attorney, trial judge and Supreme Court Justice, that convinces me that we certainly have, in the past, executed those people who either didn’t fit the criteria for execution in the State of Florida or who, in fact, were, factually, not guilty of the crime for which they have been executed.

“And you can make these statements when you understand the dynamics of the criminal justice system, when you understand how the State makes deals with more culpable defendants in a capital case, offers them light sentences in exchange for their testimony against another participant or, in some cases, in fact, gives them immunity from prosecution so that they can secure their testimony; the use of jailhouse confessions, like people who say, ‘I was in the cell with so-and-so and they confessed to me,’ or using those particular confessions, the validity of which there has been great doubt. And yet, you see the uneven application of the death penalty where, in many instances, those that are the most culpable escape death and those that are the least culpable are victims of the death penalty. These things begin to weigh very heavily upon you. And under our system, this is the system we have. And that is, we are human beings administering an imperfect system.”

“And how about those people who are still sitting on death row today, who may be factually innocent but cannot prove their particular case very simply because there is no DNA evidence in their case that can be used to exonerate them? Of course, in most cases, you’re not going to have that kind of DNA evidence, so there is no way and there is no hope for them to be saved from what may be one of the biggest mistakes that our society can make.”

The entire speech by Justice Kogan is available here.

Paul G. Cassell Associate Professor of Law, University of Utah, College of Law, and former law clerk to Chief Justice Warren E. Burger. Statement before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights Concerning Claims of Innocence in Capital Cases (July 23, 1993)

“Given the fallibility of human judgments, the possibility exists that the use of capital punishment may result in the execution of an innocent person. The Senate Judiciary Committee has previously found this risk to be ‘minimal,’ a view shared by numerous scholars. As Justice Powell has noted commenting on the numerous state capital cases that have come before the Supreme Court, the ‘unprecedented safeguards’ already inherent in capital sentencing statutes ‘ensure a degree of care in the imposition of the sentence of death that can only be described as unique.’”

“Our present system of capital punishment limits the ultimate penalty to certain specifically-defined crimes and even then, permit the penalty of death only when the jury finds that the aggravating circumstances in the case outweigh all mitigating circumstances. The system further provides judicial review of capital cases. Finally, before capital sentences are carried out, the governor or other executive official will review the sentence to insure that it is a just one, a determination that undoubtedly considers the evidence of the condemned defendant’s guilt. Once all of those decisionmakers have agreed that a death sentence is appropriate, innocent lives would be lost from failure to impose the sentence.”

“Capital sentences, when carried out, save innocent lives by permanently incapacitating murderers. Some persons who commit capital homicide will slay other innocent persons if given the opportunity to do so. The death penalty is the most effective means of preventing such killers from repeating their crimes. The next most serious penalty, life imprisonment without possibility of parole, prevents murderers from committing some crimes but does not prevent them from murdering in prison.”

“The mistaken release of guilty murderers should be of far greater concern than the speculative and heretofore nonexistent risk of the mistaken execution of an innocent person.”

Full text can be found here.

Arbitrariness & Discrimination

The death penalty is applied unfairly and should not be used.

In practice, the death penalty does not single out the worst offenders. Rather, it selects an arbitrary group based on such irrational factors as the quality of the defense counsel, the county in which the crime was committed, or the race of the defendant or victim.

Almost all defendants facing the death penalty cannot afford their own attorney. Hence, they are dependent on the quality of the lawyers assigned by the state, many of whom lack experience in capital cases or are so underpaid that they fail to investigate the case properly. A poorly represented defendant is much more likely to be convicted and given a death sentence.

With respect to race, studies have repeatedly shown that a death sentence is far more likely where a white person is murdered than where a Black person is murdered. The death penalty is racially divisive because it appears to count white lives as more valuable than Black lives. Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, 296 Black defendants have been executed for the murder of a white victim, while only 31 white defendants have been executed for the murder of a Black victim. Such racial disparities have existed over the history of the death penalty and appear to be largely intractable.

It is arbitrary when someone in one county or state receives the death penalty, but someone who commits a comparable crime in another county or state is given a life sentence. Prosecutors have enormous discretion about when to seek the death penalty and when to settle for a plea bargain. Often those who can only afford a minimal defense are selected for the death penalty. Until race and other arbitrary factors, like economics and geography, can be eliminated as a determinant of who lives and who dies, the death penalty must not be used.

Discretion has always been an essential part of our system of justice. No one expects the prosecutor to pursue every possible offense or punishment, nor do we expect the same sentence to be imposed just because two crimes appear similar. Each crime is unique, both because the circumstances of each victim are different and because each defendant is different. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a mandatory death penalty which applied to everyone convicted of first degree murder would be unconstitutional. Hence, we must give prosecutors and juries some discretion.

In fact, more white people are executed in this country than black people. And even if blacks are disproportionately represented on death row, proportionately blacks commit more murders than whites. Moreover, the Supreme Court has rejected the use of statistical studies which claim racial bias as the sole reason for overturning a death sentence.

Even if the death penalty punishes some while sparing others, it does not follow that everyone should be spared. The guilty should still be punished appropriately, even if some do escape proper punishment unfairly. The death penalty should apply to killers of black people as well as to killers of whites. High paid, skillful lawyers should not be able to get some defendants off on technicalities. The existence of some systemic problems is no reason to abandon the whole death penalty system.

Reverend Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. President and Chief Executive Officer, Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, Inc. Excerpt from “Legal Lynching: Racism, Injustice & the Death Penalty,” (Marlowe & Company, 1996)

“Who receives the death penalty has less to do with the violence of the crime than with the color of the criminal’s skin, or more often, the color of the victim’s skin. Murder — always tragic — seems to be a more heinous and despicable crime in some states than in others. Women who kill and who are killed are judged by different standards than are men who are murderers and victims.

The death penalty is essentially an arbitrary punishment. There are no objective rules or guidelines for when a prosecutor should seek the death penalty, when a jury should recommend it, and when a judge should give it. This lack of objective, measurable standards ensures that the application of the death penalty will be discriminatory against racial, gender, and ethnic groups.

The majority of Americans who support the death penalty believe, or wish to believe, that legitimate factors such as the violence and cruelty with which the crime was committed, a defendant’s culpability or history of violence, and the number of victims involved determine who is sentenced to life in prison and who receives the ultimate punishment. The numbers, however, tell a different story. They confirm the terrible truth that bias and discrimination warp our nation’s judicial system at the very time it matters most — in matters of life and death. The factors that determine who will live and who will die — race, sex, and geography — are the very same ones that blind justice was meant to ignore. This prejudicial distribution should be a moral outrage to every American.”

Justice Lewis Powell United States Supreme Court Justice excerpts from McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987) (footnotes and citations omitted)

(Mr. McCleskey, a black man, was convicted and sentenced to death in 1978 for killing a white police officer while robbing a store. Mr. McCleskey appealed his conviction and death sentence, claiming racial discrimination in the application of Georgia’s death penalty. He presented statistical analysis showing a pattern of sentencing disparities based primarily on the race of the victim. The analysis indicated that black defendants who killed white victims had the greatest likelihood of receiving the death penalty. Writing the majority opinion for the Supreme Court, Justice Powell held that statistical studies on race by themselves were an insufficient basis for overturning the death penalty.)

“[T]he claim that [t]his sentence rests on the irrelevant factor of race easily could be extended to apply to claims based on unexplained discrepancies that correlate to membership in other minority groups, and even to gender. Similarly, since [this] claim relates to the race of his victim, other claims could apply with equally logical force to statistical disparities that correlate with the race or sex of other actors in the criminal justice system, such as defense attorneys or judges. Also, there is no logical reason that such a claim need be limited to racial or sexual bias. If arbitrary and capricious punishment is the touchstone under the Eighth Amendment, such a claim could — at least in theory — be based upon any arbitrary variable, such as the defendant’s facial characteristics, or the physical attractiveness of the defendant or the victim, that some statistical study indicates may be influential in jury decision making. As these examples illustrate, there is no limiting principle to the type of challenge brought by McCleskey. The Constitution does not require that a State eliminate any demonstrable disparity that correlates with a potentially irrelevant factor in order to operate a criminal justice system that includes capital punishment. As we have stated specifically in the context of capital punishment, the Constitution does not ‘plac[e] totally unrealistic conditions on its use.’ (Gregg v. Georgia)”

The entire decision can be found here.

• Science & Math
• Sociology & Philosophy
• Law & Politics

Essay: Arguments against the Death Penalty

• Essay: Arguments against the Death…

The idea of putting another human to death is hard to completely fathom. The physical mechanics involved in the act of execution are easy to grasp, but the emotions involved in carrying out a death sentence on another person, regardless of how much they deserve it, is beyond my own understanding. However, this act is sometimes necessary and it is our responsibility as a society to see that it is done. Opponents of capital punishment have basically four arguments.

The first is that there is a possibility of error. However, the chance that there might be an error is separate from the issue of whether the death penalty can be justified or not. If an error does occur, and an innocent person is executed, then the problem lies in the court system, not in the death penalty.

Furthermore, most activities in our world, in which humans are involved, possess a possibility of injury or death. Construction, sports, driving, and air travel all offer the possibility of accidental death even though the highest levels of precautions are taken. 

These activities continue to take place and continue to occasionally take human lives, because we have all decided, as a society, that the advantages outweigh the unintended loss. We have also decided that the advantages of having dangerous murderers removed from our society outweigh the losses of the offender.

The second argument against capital punishment is that it is unfair in its administration. Statistics show that the poor and minorities are more likely to receive the death penalty. Once again, this is a separate issue. 

It can’t be disputed sadly, the rich are more likely to get off with a lesser sentence, and this bias is wrong. However, this is yet another problem with our current court system. The racial and economic bias is not a valid argument against the death penalty. It is an argument against the courts and their unfair system of sentencing.

The third argument is actually a rebuttal to a claim made by some supporters of the death penalty. The claim is that the threat of capital punishment reduces violent crimes. Opponents of the death penalty do not agree and have a valid argument when they say, “The claims that capital punishment reduces violent crime is inconclusive and certainly not proven.”

The fourth argument is that the length of stay on death row, with its endless appeals, delays, technicalities, and retrials, keep a person waiting for death for years on end. It is both cruel and costly. This is the least credible argument against capital punishment. The main cause of such inefficiencies is the appeals process, which allows capital cases to bounce back and forth between state and federal courts for years on end.

If supporting a death row inmate for the rest their life costs less than putting them to death, and ending their financial burden on society, then the problem lies in the court system, not in the death penalty. As for the additional argument, that making a prisoner wait for years to be executed is cruel, then would not waiting for death in prison for the rest of your life be just as cruel, as in the case of life imprisonment without parole.

Many Americans will tell you why they are in favor of the death penalty. It is what they deserve. It prevents them from ever murdering again. It removes the burden from taxpayers. We all live in a society with the same basic rights and guarantees. We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with equal opportunities.

This is the basis of our society. It is the foundation on which everything else is built upon. When someone willfully and flagrantly attacks this foundation by murdering another, robbing them of all they are, and all they will ever be, then that person can no longer be a part of this society. The only method that completely separates cold blooded murderers from our society is the death penalty.

As the 20th century comes to a close, it is evident that our justice system is in need of reform. This reform will shape the future of our country, and we cannot jump to quick solutions such as the elimination of the death penalty. As of now, the majority of American supports the death penalty as an effective solution of punishment.

“An eye for an eye,” is what some Americans would say concerning the death penalty. Supporters of the death penalty ask the question, “Why should I, an honest hardworking taxpayer, have to pay to support a murderer for the rest of their natural life? Why not execute them and save society the cost of their keep?” Many Americans believe that the death penalty is wrong. However, it seems obvious to some Americans that the death penalty is a just and proper way to handle convicted murderers.

Related Posts

• Essay: Against Euthanasia & Robert Latimer Case
• Essay Analysis Structure
• Death in Hamlet
• Essay Against Gun Control
• Death Penalty: Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right?

Author:  William Anderson (Schoolworkhelper Editorial Team)

Tutor and Freelance Writer. Science Teacher and Lover of Essays. Article last reviewed: 2022 | St. Rosemary Institution © 2010-2024 | Creative Commons 4.0

10 Comments

The title is Arguments against the Death Penalty yet the author spent the whole time counterclaiming any arguments brought up rather than explaining the logistics behind the arguments. No side was taken in this essay however the title clearly states that the essay should be on arguments against.

Who is the Author?

I agree with y’all the death penalty is wrong because why make them die really quick when you can make them suffer for what they did?

I disagree entirely

I agree with you!

Are you Gonna pay for them to be alive then? We are wasting money that could be spent helping the homeless or retired vetrans.

more money is spent on actually executing prisoners ? so how that makes any sense i dont know?

Whatever henious crime one does,we are not uncivilised and barbaric to take the lives of others.If we ought to give them death sentence as punishment,then what distinguishes us from the criminals?Also I don’t think that giving death sentence would deter the other criminals from doing the same and reduce the number of crimes.If insecurity is the major issue behind demanding capital punishment,then the best solution is framing the punishment in such a way that the culprit would never be a threat to the society,not hanging to death.

what distinguishes us from murderers is that we ONLY kill when necessary, if for example there was a serial killer arrested a death penalty is necessary because 1. if said killer ever breaks out they could kill many more people, and 2. the government is already pouring enough money into the prisons right now. more people means more money needed. money that could go to our military or police.

now there is also (as said above) problems with the current situation in the courts, a rich man will get a great lawyer while a poor man gets the best they can afford, though the reasoning behind the long wait I do understand, it is to reduce the likelihood of an innocent man or woman from being put to death.

by the way we don’t hang people anymore we give them painless deaths

also, in response to your idea of a different punishment to stop a criminal from committing crime again do YOU have any ideas because if you do I please post them. I AM willing to have a actual debate if you are willing to calmly do so.

It’s been proven that it costs more to put a prisoner to death by death penalty than letting them sit in jail for the rest of their life. The death penalty is funded by the taxes we pay to the government. As a taxpayer, i don’t want to spend extra money that i make to put a murdered etc. to death when they could sit in jail for the rest of their life and this is just as much punishment for them. They have time to think about their actions and hopefully get their mind right, get some help, and get right with God or whatever faith they believe in if they do. Some cases may be acceptable for the death penalty, but it should be the absolute worse ones, or if the prisoner breaks out as stated before.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Post comment

• Follow us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter
• Criminal Justice
• Environment
• Politics & Government
• Race & Gender

Expert Commentary

The research on capital punishment: Recent scholarship and unresolved questions

2014 review of research on capital punishment, including studies that attempt to quantify rates of innocence and the potential deterrence effect on crime.

Republish this article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

by Alexandra Raphel and John Wihbey, The Journalist's Resource January 5, 2015

This <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org/criminal-justice/research-capital-punishment-key-recent-studies/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org">The Journalist's Resource</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img src="https://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/cropped-jr-favicon-150x150.png" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

Over the past year the death penalty has again come into focus as a major public policy and political issue, catalyzed by several high-profile events.

The botched execution of convicted murderer and rapist Clayton Lockett in Oklahoma in 2014 was seen as a potential turning point in the debate, bringing increased attention to the mechanisms by which persons are executed. That was followed by a number of other closely scrutinized cases, and the year ended with few executions relative to years past. On December 31, 2014, Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley commuted the sentences of the remaining four prisoners on death row in that state. In 2013, Maryland became the 18th state to abolish the death penalty after Connecticut in 2012 and New Mexico in 2009.

Meanwhile, polling data suggests some softening of public attitudes, though the majority Americans continue to support capital punishment. Gallop noted in October 2014 that the level of public support (60%) is at its lowest in 40 years. A Washington Post -ABC News poll in mid-2014 found that more Americans support life sentences, rather than the death penalty, for convicted murderers. Further, recent polls from the Pew Research Center indicate that only a bare majority of Americans now support capital punishment, 55%, down from 78% in 1996.

Scholarly research sheds light on a number of important aspects of this issue:

False convictions

One key reason for the contentious debate is the concern that states are executing innocent people. How many people are unjustly facing the death penalty? By definition, it is difficult to obtain a reliable answer to this question. Presumably if judges, juries, and law enforcement were always able to conclusively determine who was innocent, those defendants would simply not be convicted in the first place. When capital punishment is the sentence, however, this issue takes on new importance.

Some believe that when it comes to death-penalty cases, this is not a huge cause for concern. In his concurrent opinion in the 2006 Supreme Court case Kansas v. Marsh , Justice Antonin Scalia suggested that the execution error rate was minimal, around 0.027%. However, a 2014 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that the figure could be higher. Authors Samuel Gross (University of Michigan Law School), Barbara O’Brien (Michigan State University College of Law), Chen Hu (American College of Radiology) and Edward H. Kennedy (University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine) examine data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the Department of Justice relating to exonerations from 1973 to 2004 in an attempt to estimate the rate of false convictions among death row defendants. (Determining innocence with full certainty is an obvious challenge, so as a proxy they use exoneration — “an official determination that a convicted defendant is no longer legally culpable for the crime.”) In short, the researchers ask: If all death row prisoners were to remain under this sentence indefinitely, how many of them would have eventually been found innocent (exonerated)?

Interestingly, the authors also note that advances in DNA identification technology are unlikely to have a large impact on false conviction rates because DNA evidence is most often used in cases of rape rather than homicide. To date, only about 13% of death row exonerations were the result of DNA testing. The Innocence Project , a litigation and public policy organization founded in 1992, has been deeply involved in many such cases.

Death penalty deterrence effects: What do we know?

A chief way proponents of capital punishment defend the practice is the idea that the death penalty deters other people from committing future crimes. For example, research conducted by John J. Donohue III (Yale Law School) and Justin Wolfers (University of Pennsylvania) applies economic theory to the issue: If people act as rational maximizers of their profits or well-being, perhaps there is reason to believe that the most severe of punishments would serve as a deterrent. (The findings of their 2009 study on this issue, “Estimating the Impact of the Death Penalty on Murder,” are inconclusive.) In contrast, one could also imagine a scenario in which capital punishment leads to an increased homicide rate because of a broader perception that the state devalues human life. It could also be possible that the death penalty has no effect at all because information about executions is not diffused in a way that influences future behavior.

In 1978 — two years after the Supreme Court issued its decision reversing a previous ban on the death penalty ( Gregg v. Georgia ) — the National Research Council (NRC) published a comprehensive review of the current research on capital punishment to determine whether one of these hypotheses was more empirically supported than the others. The NRC concluded that “available studies provide no useful evidence on the deterrent effect of capital punishment.”

Researchers have subsequently used a number of methods in an effort to get closer to an accurate estimate of the deterrence effect of the death penalty. Many of the studies have reached conflicting conclusions, however. To conduct an updated review, the NRC formed the Committee on Deterrence and the Death Penalty, comprised of academics from economics departments and public policy schools from institutions around the country, including the Carnegie Mellon University, University of Chicago and Duke University.

In 2012, the Committee published an updated report that concluded that not much had changed in recent decades: “Research conducted in the 30 years since the earlier NRC report has not sufficiently advanced knowledge to allow a conclusion, however qualified, about the effect of the death penalty on homicide rates.” The report goes on to recommend that none of the reviewed reports be used to influence public policy decisions on the death penalty.

Why has the research not been able to provide any definitive answers about the impact of the death penalty? One general challenge is that when it comes to capital punishment, a counter-factual policy is simply not observable. You cannot simultaneously execute and not execute defendants, making it difficult to isolate the impact of the death penalty. The Committee also highlights a number of key flaws in the research designs:

• There are both capital and non-capital punishment options for people charged with serious crimes. So, the relevant question on the deterrent effect of capital punishment specifically “is the differential deterrent effect of execution in comparison with the deterrent effect of other available or commonly used penalties.” None of the studies reviewed by the Committee took into account these severe, but noncapital punishments, which could also have an effect on future behaviors and could confound the estimated deterrence effect of capital punishment.
• “They use incomplete or implausible models of potential murderers’ perceptions of and response to the capital punishment component of a sanction regime”
• “The existing studies use strong and unverifiable assumptions to identify the effects of capital punishment on homicides.”

In a 2012 study, “Deterrence and the Dealth Penalty: Partial Identificaiton Analysis Using Repeated Cross Sections,” authors Charles F. Manski (Northwestern University) and John V. Pepper (University of Virginia) focus on the third challenge. They note: “Data alone cannot reveal what the homicide rate in a state without (with) a death penalty would have been had the state (not) adopted a death penalty statute. Here, as always when analyzing treatment response, data must be combined with assumptions to enable inference on counterfactual outcomes.”

However, even though the authors do not arrive at a definitive conclusion, the National Research Council Committee notes that this type of research holds some value: “Rather than imposing the strong but unsupported assumptions required to identify the effect of capital punishment on homicides in a single model or an ad hoc set of similar models, approaches that explicitly account for model uncertainty may provide a constructive way for research to provide credible albeit incomplete answers.”

Another strategy researchers have taken is to limit the focus of studies on potential short-term effects of the death penalty. In a 2009 paper, “The Short-Term Effects of Executions on Homicides: Deterrence, Displacement, or Both?” authors Kenneth C. Land and Hui Zheng of Duke University, along with Raymond Teske Jr. of Sam Houston State University, examine monthly execution data (1980-2005) from Texas, “a state that has used the death penalty with sufficient frequency to make possible relatively stable estimates of the homicide response to executions.” They conclude that “evidence exists of modest, short-term reductions in the numbers of homicides in Texas in the months of or after executions.” Depending on which model they use, these deterrent effects range from 1.6 to 2.5 homicides.

The NRC’s Committee on Deterrence and the Death Penalty commented on the findings, explaining: “Land, Teske and Zheng (2009) should be commended for distinguishing between periods in Texas when the use of capital punishment appears to have been erratic and when it appears to have been systematic. But they fail to integrate this distinction into a coherently delineated behavioral model that incorporates sanctions regimes, salience, and deterrence. And, as explained above, their claims of evidence of deterrence in the systematic regime are flawed.”

A more recent paper (2012) from the three authors, “The Differential Short-Term Impacts of Executions on Felony and Non-Felony Homicides,” addresses some of these concerns. Published in Criminology and Public Policy , the paper reviews and updates some of their earlier findings by exploring “what information can be gained by disaggregating the homicide data into those homicides committed in the course of another felony crime, which are subject to capital punishment, and those committed otherwise.” The results produce a number of different findings and models, including that “the short-lived deterrence effect of executions is concentrated among non-felony-type homicides.”

Other factors to consider

The question of what kinds of “mitigating” factors should prevent the criminal justice system from moving forward with an execution remains hotly disputed. A 2014 paper published in the Hastings Law Journal , “The Failure of Mitigation?” by scholars at the University of North Carolina and DePaul University, investigates recent executions of persons with possible mental or intellectual disabilities. The authors reviewed 100 cases and conclude that the “overwhelming majority of executed offenders suffered from intellectual impairments, were barely into adulthood, wrestled with severe mental illness, or endured profound childhood trauma.”

Two significant recommendations for reforming the existing process also are supported by some academic research. A 2010 study by Pepperdine University School of Law published in Temple Law Review , “Unpredictable Doom and Lethal Injustice: An Argument for Greater Transparency in Death Penalty Decisions,” surveyed the decision-making process among various state prosecutors. At the request of a state commission, the authors first surveyed California district attorneys; they also examined data from the other 36 states that have the death penalty. The authors found that prosecutors’ capital punishment filing decisions remain marked by local “idiosyncrasies,” meaning that “the very types of unfairness that the Supreme Court sought to eliminate” beginning in 1972 may still “infect capital cases.” They encourage “requiring prosecutors to adhere to an established set of guidelines.” Finally, there has been growing support for taping interrogations of suspects in capital cases, so as to guard against the phenomenon of false confessions .

Related reading: For an international perspective on capital punishment, see Amnesty International’s 2013 report ; for more information on the evolution of U.S. public opinion on the death penalty, see historical trends from Gallup .

Keywords: crime, prisons, death penalty, capital punishment

About the Authors

Alexandra Raphel

John Wihbey

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Death Penalty — The Reasons Why I Am Against Death Penalty

The Reasons Why I Am Against Death Penalty

• Categories: Death Penalty Personal Beliefs

About this sample

Words: 1393 |

Published: Mar 18, 2021

Words: 1393 | Pages: 3 | 7 min read

• Boys, Stephanie. (2011). The death penalty: An unusual punishment America is inflicting upon itself. Critical Criminology, 19(2), 107-118.
• Friedman, Lauri S. (2007). The death penalty. San Diego, CA: Reference Point Press.
• Engle, Jeremy. “Should We Abolish the Death Penalty?” Google, Google, www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/learning/should-we-abolish-the-death-penalty.amp.html.
• “Five Reasons to Abolish the Death Penalty.” Amnesty International Australia, 19 June 2019, www.amnesty.org.au/5-reasons-abolish-death-penalty/.

Should follow an “upside down” triangle format, meaning, the writer should start off broad and introduce the text and author or topic being discussed, and then get more specific to the thesis statement.

Cornerstone of the essay, presenting the central argument that will be elaborated upon and supported with evidence and analysis throughout the rest of the paper.

The topic sentence serves as the main point or focus of a paragraph in an essay, summarizing the key idea that will be discussed in that paragraph.

The body of each paragraph builds an argument in support of the topic sentence, citing information from sources as evidence.

After each piece of evidence is provided, the author should explain HOW and WHY the evidence supports the claim.

Should follow a right side up triangle format, meaning, specifics should be mentioned first such as restating the thesis, and then get more broad about the topic at hand. Lastly, leave the reader with something to think about and ponder once they are done reading.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues Life

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

5 pages / 2452 words

2 pages / 760 words

2 pages / 745 words

2 pages / 1011 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Death Penalty

In conclusion, the ethical considerations surrounding the death penalty for murderers are complex and multifaceted. The arguments for deterrence, retribution, and justice are countered by concerns about the risk of wrongful [...]

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is a highly debated and controversial topic. While some argue that it serves as a deterrent for heinous crimes and provides justice for victims and their families, others [...]

The death penalty has been a contentious issue in the United States for decades. Advocates argue that it serves as a deterrent for heinous crimes, while opponents highlight the moral and ethical implications of state-sanctioned [...]

The death of a moth may seem like a trivial event, but Virginia Woolf's essay "The Death of the Moth" suggests otherwise. Through her vivid and poetic language, Woolf portrays the inevitability of death and the fragility of [...]

The dilemma of whether or not the Death Penalty is ethical is major problem facing society today. The death penalty is given to those who commit crimes deemed by society and government as deserving the infliction of death with [...]

The Death Penalty has been a widely controversial topic in America as it is illegal in 27 of the 50 states in America. Only 21 of the 50 states have been a part of this movement including Texas, Alabama, and more. During the [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper
• Research Paper
• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

Against the Death Penalty, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 458

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

Human civilization has always thrived on the foundations of law and order, and whenever the law is broken, there are remedies that have been prescribed. While the remedies prescribed by the law vary according to the severity of a crime or unlawful act, the death penalty is observed as the epitome of the power of corporal punishment, its use is barbaric and should be abolished from society because of its (1) high financial cost to tax payer, (2) inhumanity and (3) ineffectiveness to deter crime.

Cost to the Taxpayer

While the death penalty may appear as a cheap alternative to deterring crime and remedying wrongs that are committed to society, it is actually a costly corporal punishment to the taxpayer. Court cases that involve the death penalty are usually lengthy and tedious, causing the government to incur considerable cost to facilitate the extensive research and paying the judges and personnel who will be responsible for the hearing (Stiglitz, Edlin, & De Long, 2012). Some of the most significant costs stem from the lengthy delays, appeals, retrials and technicalities that are associated with potential death penalty cases.

While the concept of an individual forfeiting the right to life as a result of considerably cruel and/or evil deed appears to be justifiable, it is redundant in itself. Humanity is founded on the very concept of respecting life (Mandery, 2012). H. L. Mencken held that the unpleasantness of the hangman’s job is no ground for dismissing its importance to the society (Mencken, 2012). However, this argument trivializes the essence of humanity. Humanity goes beyond mere effect-cause relationships in the universe.

Ineffectiveness to Deter Crime

The death penalty is arguably an effective technique to deter crime. Most individuals committing crimes that deserve the death penalty are usually rational when committing such crimes. This concept is against Mencken’s ideology that the death penalty does not serve the purpose of deterring crime (Mencken, 2012). While his argument on the use of the penalty to stop criminals from killing is valid, this argument is characterized by a fallacy of false dilemma. There is another more effective alternative, life imprisonment.

In conclusion, the death penalty is an ancient and barbaric punishment that should be abolished. It is considerably costly to the taxpayer owing to the extensive procedures and process involved. Taking an individual’s life to remedy the taking of another life is inhumane. The death penalty is largely ineffective in deterring crime.

Works Cited

Mandery, E. J. (2012). Capital Punishment in America: A Balanced Examination. Sudbury: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Mencken, H. L. (2012). The Penalty of Death. In H. Phillips, & P. Bostian, The Purposeful Argument: A Practical Guide (pp. 524-529). Boston: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.

Stiglitz, J. E., Edlin, A. S., & De Long, B. J. (2012). The economists’ voice : top economists take on today’s problems. New York: Columbia University Press.

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

The Cherokee and Their Native Land, Essay Example

Marjane’s Interaction With Western Culture, Essay Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Pages: 1

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371

• AI Content Shield
• AI KW Research
• AI Assistant
• SEO Optimizer
• AI KW Clustering
• Customer reviews
• The NLO Revolution
• Press Center
• Help Center
• Content Resources
• Facebook Group

Death Penalty Essay Introduction — a Quick Guide

Table of Contents

The death penalty is a state-sanctioned practice where an individual is executed for an offense punishable through such means. Death penalty essay is a common topic given to students where the essay writer argues this controversial issue and takes a stand. The death penalty essay intro consists of the opening sentence, the background information, and the thesis statement.

Writing a compelling introduction isn’t easy. But with the tips and examples in this guide, you’ll be able to write a captivating introduction.

What Is a Death Penalty Essay?

The death penalty is the practice of executing a person guilty of capital murder, a crime in which the loss of life is intentional. This method of punishment has been around for as long as human civilization.

The death penalty has been controversial for a long time, with people on both sides of the fence. Supporters claim it works to deter crime, but there is no evidence to prove it. Opposers claim it is cruel and is not the best way to serve justice. 

A death penalty essay argues for or against the death penalty. This essay topic is a typical assignment given to college students. Common death penalty essay topics are as follows:

• About the Death Penalty
• Does the Death Penalty effectively deter crime?
• The Death Penalty should not be legal
• The Death Penalty should be abolished.
• Death Penalty and Justice
• Pro-Death Penalty
• Is the Death Penalty Morally Right?
• Death Penalty is Immoral
• Religious Values and Death Penalty
• Ineffectiveness of Death Penalty
• Punishment and the Nature of the Crime
• The Death Penalty and Juveniles.
• Is the Death Penalty Effective?
• The Death Penalty is Politically Just
• The Death Penalty: Right or Wrong?
• Abolishment of the Death Penalty
• The Death Penalty and People’s Opinions
• Is Death Penalty Humane?

How to Write an Interesting Death Penalty Essay Intro

Like other essays, the death penalty essay intro comprises three parts. The hook, a strong opening sentence, grips the reader, sparks their curiosity, and compels them to read the rest of the piece.

Subsequent sentences provide background information on the topic and define the argument’s terms. The last part is the thesis statement, which summarizes the central focus of the essay.

1. the Opening Sentence/Hook

The hook is a statement that grips the reader’s attention and makes them want to read on . The hook should be an exciting statement that sparks the readers’ curiosity, and sets the tone for the essay. It should give an overview of the topic. You could begin with a thought-provoking question, an interesting quote, an exciting anecdote, or a shocking statistic or fact. 

2. Background Information

Provide more information about the subject you are discussing. Create context and give background information on the topic. It could be a social or historical context. Define key terms that the reader might find confusing and clearly but concisely state why the issue is important.

3. Thesis Statement

The thesis statement is the overarching idea – the central focus of the essay. It summarizes the idea that you’ll be explaining throughout the entirety of the piece. Once this statement has been established, you’ll smoothly transition into the main body of your essay. Make the thesis clear and concise. 

Death Penalty Essay Introduction Example

Does the death penalty deter crime, especially murder? The death penalty has been controversial for years. Over the years, public opinion about the death penalty seems to have changed. But there are still people who think it is a proper punishment. I have heard the phrase “An eye for an eye” most of my life. Most people firmly believe that if a criminal took someone’s life, their lives should be taken away too. But I don’t think that will discourage anyone from committing crimes. I believe that the criminal should be given a lighter punishment. 

The death penalty or capital punishment is the execution of a criminal by a government as punishment for a crime. In the United States, the death penalty is the most common form of sentence in murder cases.

A death penalty essay argues for or against the death penalty. The essay introduction begins with an attention-grabber , followed by background information on the topic and then the thesis statement.

Abir Ghenaiet

Abir is a data analyst and researcher. Among her interests are artificial intelligence, machine learning, and natural language processing. As a humanitarian and educator, she actively supports women in tech and promotes diversity.

Explore All Essay Intro Generator Articles

The different ways to start a comparative essay.

Some writers intend to compare two specific things or ideas through their articles. They write these essays to compare and…

• Essay Intro Generator

Know The Best Way to Start an Expository Essay

Are you into writing essays that tackle a still-unknown fact? Do you know how to write an expository essay? Before…

Writing an Opinion Essay? Read This First!

Students are required to express their opinions on a topic in an opinion essay. Pertinent illustrations and explanations support their…

Identifying the Best Transitions to Start an Essay

A typical academic assignment is the essay, which must meet certain requirements in order to be written properly. Even students…

How to Write Introductions for Synthesis Essays

One of the most exciting assignments you could have is writing a synthesis essay. For a college or university student,…

How to Write Introductions for Music Essays

Music is food for the soul, or so they say. A music essay analyzes or describes a piece of music,…

• Death Penalty Essays

Persuasive Speech against the Death Penalty Essay

Introduction.

What if one of your family members was wrongly convicted for murder? What if you were put on death row because you happened to be the last person seen leaving a crime scene where a bomb blew up and killed people? It is questions like these that raise public concern; people are more apathetic in cases where this form of injustice does not affect them, however, when a case of this nature becomes more personal, people are empathetic. Why should we be so selfish as to see what others suffer? Death penalty should be abolished because it demeans the quality of human life, it costs the country a lot of money, it results to the death of innocents, and because life without parole is a sensible alternative.

Struggling with your HW?

Get your assignments done by real pros. Save your precious time and boost your marks with ease. Just fill in your HW requirements and you can count on us!

• Customer data protection
• 100% Plagiarism Free

There is a need to change the laws

There is a need to change the laws about capital punishment; according to Amnesty International, there is no credible evidence that capital punishment deters crime. According to an article titled, “Why the Death Penalty should be abolished” on the International Commission against the Death Penalty (2012), over 140 nations worldwide have abolished capital punishment; the United States remains among a handful that still advocate for death penalty. Some of these countries (China, Iraq and Iran) are notorious for human rights violations (ICDP, 2012).

According to an article titled, “Facts about the Death Penalty” on the Death Penalty Focus’ website (2013), the executions are funded with staggering figures in taxpayer’s money. Research shows that since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1978, the state of California has spent over $4 Billion on capital punishment. This is far much more than it would have cost the state to give life without parole. The death penalty has led to the death of innocents, this is a violation of human rights and dignity.

The ramification of upholding the death sentence is a raise in taxes due to future cases of crime; this might lead to inflation because of an excess supply of money. Tax payers could save a lot of money if capital punishment was abolished. A life sentence without the option of parole is, therefore, a good punishment alternative because it is more humane to jail than to kill. If I were ever going to be murdered, I would not want the convict to die because of me; if it were my family member who suffered this forbidden fate, I would not want anyone to kill for them. I would not sleep in peace knowing I advocated for the case of murder for murder.

Used our essay samples for inspiration ?

For more help, tap into our pool of professional writers and get expert essay editing services!

People have to change their attitudes about death penalty; change begins with us, the people. If the people champion for an alternative to the death penalty, it will send shockwaves through the law making units of the government. In the future, you, your friends or your family could be wrongly or rightfully convicted and sentenced to death; you can never know what the future has to hold. The uprising against the death penalty is not to protect criminals, but rather, to preserve human dignity, human rights and humanity at large.

I would urge one and all to join me in this human rights cause, to change public attitude towards death penalty, and to champion for an alternative form of punishment that is more humane and just. In the future, it could be you, your friend, you family that is wrongly convicted for murder; how do you choose to remember this day? Will it be the day that you championed for the death penalty, or the day that you voted against it? Make the right choice by moving for the abolishment of the death penalty law.

Death penalty should be abolished because there is no humane way to kill, you cannot reverse it. Abolishing the death penalty will not only put the country at par with others that uphold human rights and dignity, it will save the country a lot of money that could be used to assist the families of murder victims.

• 5 reasons to abolish the death penalty. (n.d.). Amnesty Australia. Retrieved April 17, 2014, from http://www.amnesty.org.au/adp/comments/29959/
• Death Penalty : Facts. (2013, May 31). Death Penalty : Facts. Retrieved April 15, 2014, from http://www.deathpenalty.org/section.php?id=13
• Why the Death Penalty should be abolished. (2014, April 16). International Commission against the Death Penalty RSS. Retrieved April 16, 2014, from http://www.icomdp.org/arguments-against-the-death-penalty/

Related Essays

Find Free Essays

We provide you with original essay samples, perfect formatting and styling

Request must contain at least 2 characters

Popular Topics

Samples by Essay Type

Cite this page

About our services

Type Persuasive

Topic Death Penalty

Level College

This sample is NOT ORIGINAL. Get 100% unique essay written under your req

• Only $11 per page
• Free revisions included

Studyfy uses cookies to deliver the best experience possible. Read more.

Studyfy uses secured cookies. Read more.

• Knowledge Base
• Popular Essay Topics

Death Penalty Essay

• Author StudySaurus
• Category Popular Essay Topics

Disclaimer: This paper has been submitted by a student. This is not a sample of the work written by professional academic writers.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of StudySaurus.

Argumentative Essay on Against the Death Penalty

In the United States criminal justice system when a human being takes the life of another human being there are roughly two options for consequences; Life in prison with no possibility of parole or the death penalty. So, in regard to the death penalty, morality can define what justice may to be in a criminal punishment. Individuals who believe it is morally right to put an individual to death over a horrendous crime support the retentionist argument for the death penalty. Individuals who believe it is morally wrong to kill an individual, despite the crime committed are in support of the abolitionist argument of the death penalty. In the United States, there are thirty-one states in support of the death penalty and remaining nineteen states are against the death penalty law. As the death penalty can be a controversial topic is it important to consider all possible factors. The best approach to the death penalty is the principle of human dignity.

The principle of human dignity is an argument in abolishing the death penalty. The principle of human dignity presents an argument that gives all individuals equal rights regardless of decisions made in a criminal act. The principle of human dignity is an argument that a human being, in virtue of just being a human or person has intrinsic worth. This argument means that a human being is a human being and should always be treated as one. No matter the crime committed, one does not forfeit their right to life even if they have taken one. This argument in abolishing the death penalty can agree with tortures should not be tortured, drunk drivers not being hit with a vehicle, and individuals who are accused of arson should not be set on fire. The consequences for those crimes are excessive; the same thing occurs when in regards of the death penalty. When placing the idea of an eye for an eye on various crimes is seems extreme and unnecessary. A life for a life is excessive. Criminals do forfeit some rights to life, but not all rights to life. Punishments will happen for individuals committing these crimes, but there are punishments that fit the crimes being committed. For example, life in prison with no possibility of parole fits the punishment of first degree murder.

The principle of human dignity directly goes directly against the element of reciprocity. The element of reciprocity explains that we can forfeit our rights by our own actions. If a person violates someone’s right to life, this murderer forfeits his or her right to life. The argument claims the state is not taking anyone’s right away because if one took a life of someone else, they do not have a right themselves. The human dignity argument has the idea that human dignity should always be reserved. Human rights are given to an individual when born should be modified when committing crimes but never forfeited.

The principle of human dignity attempts to portray a message to lead individuals to believe that ending someone’s life says, a person doesn’t have any worth or value left. Individuals should never lose their respect for human dignity. Good or bad actions, all humans have emotions and can feel pain; at somewhat the same level. Individuals who do not agree with the principle of human dignity are in support of the death penalty. There are many factors that morality support the death penalty. Supports are in favor of taking the life of someone who committed a horrendous crime; a life for a life. Individuals who do not agree with the human dignity argument may attempt to argue that the death penalty is an effective consequence because it deters other criminals from committing the crimes. Continuing, it may be argued that the death penalty can show society its moral outrage at unpleasant crimes. Resulting in a decrease in the crime rates. Although this seems efficient, an individual who commits a crime already knowing the consequences. Life in prison with no possible chance of parole is enough to deter an individual of a crime who does not want to seek punishment.

Other supporters of the death penalty derive more from government than society. The government is considerably more in favor of the death penalty because of the costs. It is much cheaper in today’s economy to eliminate the criminals with the death penalty rather than to pay for them to live their entire life in prison. This argument is important to the government because it saves the government more money. Rather than having an inmate in prison and maintain the funds to support these prisoner’s lives, the government would rather choose to execute the criminals. Morally, this is the most incorrect argument regarding the death penalty. No amount of money is equivalent to the life of a human being. Not only is the death penalty decreasing the value of a human being’s life, it is putting the cost and expenses of keeping individuals alive, above their rights to life.

The death penalty is the wrong consequence more many reasons. Although, individuals are rarely put to death for crimes they did not commit, it does happen. To avoid wrongfully killing an individual for a crime they did not commit, the death penalty should not be used a punishment. Technology continues to advance every day. Scientist are figuring out new technology and experiments as we speak. If new advances in technology (regarding the criminal justice system) were to be discovered and the death penalty was not implemented, an individual would gain their rights and freedom back. A wrongfully committed individual can be released from prison, not brought back to life. Not all, but some crimes can be justified.

Although the death penalty has been used for thousands of years to punish criminals, in today’s society it is not as effective. The death penalty is such a controversial topic there will never be a correct answer. The arguments are all based on morals and views. Although there is no correct answer, there is a better answer. The human dignity argument gives all humans, equal rights; regardless is one made a criminal mistake or not. All humans have human dignity.

Capital Punishment Essay

J.R.R Tolkien once said, “many that live deserves death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.” The death penalty should be repealed because it’s very stressful for those involved, it is extremely expensive, and it has convicted innocent people.

One reason why the death penalty should be illegal is because it’s very stressful for those who are involved. According to Berman there were several officials begging for them to change the pace of executions because it imposes stress and trauma (Berman). This proves that carrying out several executions can take a severe toll on correction officers wellbeing. Berman states, “In a state review, authorities wrote that the execution team placed the IV incorrectly and that the officers involved described a feeling of extra stress and urgency because a second execution was scheduled for the same night” (Berman). This also proves that when there’s back to back executions scheduled it can stress the correction officers out and they can get nervous and mess up on something. In “With Lethal Injection Drugs Expiring” Berman states, “‘How can you expect them to do something of this magnitude? It’s rough,’ Givens who executed 62 people and now opposes the death penalty, said Friday. ‘I know the effect it can have on you when you participate in execution… It takes a while to really come out of that” (Berman). This proves that when working as a correction officer and you have to execute people it can be very traumatic and hard to get over which causes stress.

Another reason why the death penalty should be repealed is because it is extremely expensive. According to Jones and Eder, California had spent more than $8 billion on capital punishment since it was reinstated in 1928 (Jones and Eder). This proves that the states are spending billions of dollars just to execute people when that money could be going towards something more beneficial. Jones and Eder states, “The cost of housing a death row inmate outpaces the cost of housing a general-population prisoner by $100,000 a year, primarily because death- row inmates are housed alone instead of two-a-cell, and they require a higher level of security” (Jones and Eder). This proves that the cost of housing just one single death row inmate is very expensive. If housing just one is millions of dollars, than imagine how much money it is when housing multiple. In “Costs Test Backing For Death Penalty” Jones and Eder states, “The Alarcon study concluded jury selection alone in capital cases cost more than $200,000 above the amount for life without parole an that the death penalty prosecutors can cost 20 times as much as life-without parole” (Jones and Eder). This shows that capital cases cost a lot of money and is very expensive. It cost way more than it would cost if it was just life without parole.

Another reason why the death penalty should be repealed is because it kills innocent people. In the article “Time to Question Sanity of Death Penalty” Phillip Holloway states, “A study last year found that, at a conservative estimate, ‘more than 4% of inmates sentenced to death in the united states are probably innocent.’ indeed, there have been 330 executions based on DNA alone” (holloway). This quote proves that over 100 people has been put on death that are innocent. According to Holloway there was this man name Henry McCollum, who was in prison for 30 years on death row for the murder of an 11 year old girl which evidence showed that he did not do. This case proves that some death row cases are unfair and they convict innocent people. His whole life is thrown away over something he didn’t do which is unfair. Holloway states, “Some of the inmates appear to suffer from intellectual impairment and outlining qualms about the legal representation the men have had” (Holloway). People who don’t know better are put to death row, and many of them suffers disabilities and intellectual impairment. Why would you want to kill someone who suffer mental illnesses and doesn’t know better?

Even though many people feel that the death penalty should be abolished, there are many people who support it. People who support the death penalty says it saves lives. According to David Muhlhausen, “Professors Hashem Dezhbakhsh, Paul R. Rubin, and Joanna M. Shepherd of Emory University found that each execution, on average, results in fewer murders” (Muhlhausen). This can be proven wrong because according to Kyle Gibson, prison homicides have increased in the past year from 39 to 55, or a 44% increase (Gibson). People who support the death penalty also argue that it brings justice and closure to the victim’s family. In the article “Death Penalty Brings Relief to Victims’ Family” John Futty states, “She felt comforted to know that he will be put to death” (Futty). Even though many think it will bring closure, it can also bring stress and trauma on others such as those involved. Berman stated, “correction officers described a feeling of extra stress and urgency” (Berman).

Simply by repealing and/or making the death penalty illegal would make America way better. It doesn’t help or do anything to resolve the crime rate. The death penalty is senseless and discriminatory. There’s still crimes going on with the death penalty being legal. It brings nothing but stress, debt, and innocent lives lost.

Was this material helpful?

Related essays, about studysaurus, community. knowledge. success..

StudySaurus is run by two uni-students that still get a kick out of learning new things. We hope to share these experiences with you.

Ideas ,  concepts ,  tutorials,   essay papers  – everything we would’ve liked to have known, seen or heard during our high-school & UNI years, we want to bring to YOU.

Privacy & Cookies Policy Terms and Conditions DMCA Request

BBC World Service

Listen live.

Morning Edition

NPR's Morning Edition takes listeners around the country and the world with two hours of multi-faceted stories and commentaries that inform, challenge and occasionally amuse. Morning Edition is the most listened-to news radio program in the country.

• Courts & Law
• Gun Violence
• Pennsylvania

DA plans to seek death penalty against man charged with killing 3 relatives in Levittown

Bucks county district attorney jennifer schorn plans to seek capital punishment because of the “multiple killings and grave risk to others.”.

• Associated Press
• Mike Catalini

FILE - An investigation continues at the scene of a fatal shooting in Levittown, Pa., Saturday, March 16, 2024. A man charged in the fatal shooting of three family members in suburban Philadelphia and related carjacking and weapons counts in New Jersey has been transferred to Pennsylvania, officials said Wednesday, April 3, 2024. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke, File)

Related Content

Man faces charges in Pa. and N.J. after alleged killings of family members in Bucks County

Andre Gordon Jr. has been charged in Bucks County with murder, aggravated assault and robbery. New Jersey's attorney general says he faces carjacking and weapons charges.

3 weeks ago

Get daily updates from WHYY News!

The free WHYY News Daily newsletter delivers the most important local stories to your inbox.

WHYY is your source for fact-based, in-depth journalism and information. As a nonprofit organization, we rely on financial support from readers like you. Please give today.

You may also like

3 Chester men have convictions overturned after decades behind bars in Henrietta Nickens’ 1997 killing

The three defendants were convicted even though DNA testing at the time showed that evidence found in the victim’s body did not match any of them, attorneys said.

Bucks County files climate lawsuit against Big Oil

Filed a year after devastating flash floods killed seven people in Bucks County, the lawsuit alleges the oil industry deceived the public about its climate impact.

About Associated Press

Want a digest of WHYY’s programs, events & stories? Sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Together we can reach 100% of WHYY’s fiscal year goal

Make a gift to PBS NewsHour’s global reporting

and your donation will be doubled by the Dorney-Koppel Foundation!

Risdel Kasasira, Associated Press Risdel Kasasira, Associated Press

Leave your feedback

• Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/ugandan-court-rejects-bid-to-nullify-anti-gay-law-that-provides-for-the-death-penalty-in-some-cases

Ugandan court rejects bid to nullify anti-gay law that provides for the death penalty in some cases

KAMPALA, Uganda (AP) — Uganda’s Constitutional Court on Wednesday upheld an anti-gay law that allows the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality” despite widespread condemnation from rights groups and others abroad.

President Yoweri Museveni signed the bill into law in May last year. The law is supported by many in the East African country, where some see it as behavior imported from abroad and not a sexual orientation.

One activist petitioner quickly vowed to appeal to the Supreme Court,

Constitutional Court judges said the law was legally passed by parliament and does not violate the constitution. Homosexuality was already illegal in Uganda under a colonial-era law criminalizing sexual activity “against the order of nature.” The punishment for that offense is life imprisonment.

The law in question defines “aggravated homosexuality” as cases of homosexual relations involving a minor and other categories of vulnerable people, or when the perpetrator is infected with HIV. A suspect convicted of “attempted aggravated homosexuality” can be imprisoned for up to 14 years, and the offense of “attempted homosexuality” is punishable by up to 10 years.

WATCH: U.S. support for LGBTQ+ rights is declining after decades of support. Here’s why

The court, however, ruled that members of the gay community should not be discriminated against when seeking medication. Uganda was one of the earliest and hardest hit countries when AIDS emerged, and public health experts have long warned against letting stigma or fear of punishment impede access to care.

“They should be medically and culturally accepted,” Deputy Chief Justice Richard Buteera said.

One of the 14 petitioners, Andrew Mwenda, said they would appeal.

“What we have witnessed in court is what I would call a temporary reversal in an overall strategic battle or a strategic war against cultural bigotry and prejudice, so we are going to appeal to the Supreme Court, not for striking down the different components of this law but for overturning this law into its entirety,” he said.

The U.N. commissioner for human rights, Volker Turk, in a statement expressed dismay at the court’s decision and called on Uganda’s government to repeal the law. He said nearly 600 people have been reportedly subjected to rights violations and abuses based on their actual or assumed sexual orientation or gender identity since the law was enacted in May.

When the law was passed, the U.N. human rights office called it ”a recipe for systematic violations of the rights” of LGBTQ+ people and others. U.S. President Joe Biden called the law “a tragic violation of universal human rights — one that is not worthy of the Ugandan people, and one that jeopardizes the prospects of critical economic growth for the entire country.”

The World Bank halted new loans to Uganda, saying additional measures were necessary to ensure projects align with the bank’s environmental and social standards.

Homosexuality is criminalized in more than 30 of Africa’s 54 countries.

Support Provided By: Learn more

Support PBS NewsHour:

Educate your inbox

Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.

Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.

How a second Trump presidency could impact the LGBTQ+ community

Politics Mar 27

Uganda’s Constitutional Court on Wednesday upheld most provisions of controversial legislation that imposes a sentence of death by hanging against individuals convicted of “aggravated homosexuality.”

In upholding the Anti-Homosexuality Act, the court maintained that though the country’s penal code is “undoubtedly … considered to be a relic from the country’s colonial past,” the bill’s overwhelming parliamentary and public support made clear it encapsulated the zeitgeist.

And in doing so, the Constitutional Court cited the US Supreme Court decision Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization — the ruling that overturned the reproductive rights enshrined in Roe v. Wade .

How will the Constitutional Court judgment affect Uganda’s beleaguered LGBTQ+ population? Why is homophobia so widespread in the country? And what do US reproductive rights have to do with any of this? In this explainer, we will explore these questions and more.

What is the background of the Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2023?

The Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2023 is not Uganda’s first foray into anti-gay legislation. The country’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009 sought to impose the death penalty for certain homosexual acts but was ultimately derailed by Western pressure. Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2014 softened the punitive structure, swapping out the death sentence for life in prison, but was ultimately struck down by the Constitutional Court on procedural grounds.

In 2023, lawmakers tried again, purportedly spurred on by societal fervor and the alleged “forced recruitment of children into homosexual acts.” The new law, which re-established the death penalty option, earned presidential assent on May 26, 2023. Critics turned to the Constitutional Court, asserting that the law contravened human rights and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Uganda’s constitution .

What same-sex activities are criminalized under the Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2023?

Homosexuality was already criminalized under the Ugandan penal code, which authorizes  sentences of life imprisonment for sexual acts that are “against the order of nature.” The newest anti-gay legislation simply expands the scope of homosexual activities that can be prosecuted and increases punitive measures.

Most controversially, the new law imposes the death penalty in cases of “aggravated homosexuality,” the sprawling definition of which includes, among other offenses, pedophilia, incest, the spread of terminal illness, and acts where “the offender is a serial offender.” Included among the “aggravated” offenses are sexual acts committed with disabled people, which Human Rights Watch (HRW) has described as discriminatory toward gay people with disabilities.

The court upheld most of the substantive aspects of the law, with the exceptions of provisions criminalizing the rental of premises for “homosexual purposes,” the failure to report homosexual activities to the police, and engagement in homosexual acts by people with terminal illnesses.

How prevalent is homophobic sentiment in Uganda?

In justifying its decision to uphold the bulk of the restrictive Anti-Homosexuality Act , the court leaned on widespread anti-gay sentiment in Uganda, which it described as a: “public outcry, social and broadcast media discussions[,] and homosexuality victims’ ‘painful and grueling’ stories of children and families that were ‘dying in silence’ from the psychological trauma of forced recruitment of children into homosexual acts.”

Indeed, homophobic sentiment is rife in Uganda. A 2023 study by the organization Afrobarometer found that 94 percent of Ugandan citizens would “dislike” having a homosexual neighbor.

Notably, the study showed that Ugandans were far more averse to homosexuality than they were to other areas assessed for public tolerance. Though a staggering majority voiced repulsion at the thought of having gay neighbors, the majority were open to neighbors from different countries (74 percent), with different political (79 percent) and religious views (93 percent), or of different ethnic backgrounds (85 percent).

Researchers and advocacy groups have long linked Ugandan homophobia with the influence of socially conservative US Christian Evangelical groups in the country. In particular, this theory holds that homosexuality is framed as a Western import, thus fueling its rejection with a post-colonial repulsion to external influence. A 2009 report for Political Research Associates described the phenomenon:

If they had faced strong opposition, U.S. conservatives might not have been so successful in promoting their homophobic politics. Traditionally, evangelical African churches have been biblically and doctrinally orthodox but socially progressive on such issues as national liberation and poverty, making them natural partners of the politically liberal western churches. But their religious orthodoxy also provides the U.S. Right with an opportunity. Africans resonate with the denunciation of homosexuality as a postcolonial plot; their homophobia is as much an expression of resistance to the West as it is a statement about human sexuality.

A 2020 openDemocracy investigation revealed that upwards of 20 Christian groups from the US had poured at least $54 million into conservative social causes in Africa since 2007. One group in particular — the Fellowship Foundation, which reportedly played a role in drafting earlier anti-gay legislation in Uganda — spent more than $20 million in Uganda between 2008 and 2018.

Afrobarometer also reported that Uganda was the least tolerant toward same-sex relationships of 37 African countries surveyed between 2021 and 2022. That said, anti-gay sentiment has been on the rise in other African countries as well. In December 2023, Burundi President Evariste Ndayishimiye said in a quote carried by the New York Times : “I think that if we find [LGBTQ+] people in Burundi, it is better to take them to a stadium and stone them.” Last month, Ghana passed a law that would impose a three-year prison sentence for merely identifying as a gay person. Across the continent, 31 countries criminalize same-sex relationships and activities, according to Amnesty International.

What does any of this have to do with US reproductive rights?

The Constitutional Court cited Dobbs in response to criticism that the law compromised the autonomy of LGBTQ+ people by failing to adequately distinguish between criminal sexual behavior and private sexual acts between consenting adults. The court wrote:

In [Dobbs], the US Supreme Court considered the nation’s history and traditions, as well as the dictates of democracy and rule of law, to overrule the broader right to autonomy. The court considered the implications of upholding the right to autonomy under the guise of personal dignity … and held that it was time to return the permissibility of abortion and the limitations thereon to the people’s elected representatives as demanded by the Constitution and the rule of law. This is precisely what was done with the issue of homosexuality in Uganda.

The US decision was thus illustrative in the court’s determination that matters of personal autonomy are not absolute and can be balanced against a country’s history and traditions.

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg sentenced to death for spying

On April 5, 1951, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were sentenced to death after a treason trial in which they were convicted of passing atomic secrets to the Soviet Union. Learn more about the Rosenberg trial .

Lockerbie bombers turned over for trial

On April 5, 1999, the government of Libya turned over to British authorities two of its citizens who were accused of blowing up Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. The subsequent trial of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah began on May 3, 2000. When the court reached its verdict , Fhimah was found not guilty and returned to Libya, while Megrahi was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. Learn more about the Lockerbie Air Disaster and the trial of Megrahi and Fhimah from the Syracuse University Law School. Also, learn more about the investigation into the disaster from the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Did Prosecutors’ Sex Shaming Help Send Brenda Andrew to Death Row?

The Supreme Court will soon decide whether to hear an appeal in her case, which, as one judge put it, “focused from start to finish on Ms. Andrew’s sex life.”

By Adam Liptak

Reporting from Washington

During his closing argument in the 2004 murder trial of Brenda Andrew in Oklahoma, a prosecutor dangled her thong underwear before the jury. She had packed the undergarment for a trip to Mexico a few days after her estranged husband was killed.

The prosecutor, Gayland Gieger, said the item was strong evidence that Ms. Andrew had murdered her husband. “The grieving widow packs this to run off with her boyfriend,” he said, holding her underwear.

“That’s enough,” he said. “Can’t twist the facts, folks. Can’t twist the evidence.”

The spectacle “drew gasps from the crowded courtroom,” a local newspaper reported. The jury convicted Ms. Andrew and condemned her to death. She is the only woman on the state’s death row.

Later this month, the Supreme Court will consider whether to hear Ms. Andrew’s appeal , which said the display of her underwear was a representative part of an unrelenting strategy by prosecutors, as a dissenting judge put it, “of introducing evidence that has no purpose other than to hammer home that Brenda Andrew is a bad wife, a bad mother and a bad woman.”

Nathalie Greenfield, one of Ms. Andrew’s lawyers, said gender stereotypes infected the trial and poisoned the jury.

“Every single day the state was presenting gendered evidence about her appearance, about her clothing, about her sexual practices, about her skills as a mother,” she said. “We’ve got someone who is at risk of execution for not conforming to gender stereotypes.”

A brief supporting Ms. Andrew from a former federal judge and others said the volume of prejudicial evidence portraying her as “a hypersexual seductress” warranted review. “The prosecution introduced reams of inflammatory evidence about Ms. Andrew’s sexuality,” the brief said, including “lurid details of her multiple affairs, her suggestive clothing and lingerie, her cleavage and even a book on how to ‘Drive a Man Wild in Bed.’”

The Supreme Court has overturned a death sentence based on testimony tainted by racial bias, saying that “some toxins can be deadly in small doses.” Ms. Andrew’s case asks whether courts should take a similar approach to evidence grounded in gender stereotypes.

“Gender bias is normalized and tolerated to an extent that racial bias no longer is in the administration of the death penalty,” said Sandra Babcock , a law professor at Cornell who represents Ms. Andrew in a related case . “Women on trial for capital murder have been subjected to similar shaming tactics for hundreds of years.”

In urging the Supreme Court not to hear the case, Andrew v. White , No. 23-6573, prosecutors said almost nothing to justify using evidence about Ms. Andrew’s appearance and sexuality. They argued instead that it was “but a drop in the ocean” in the case against her. State and federal appeals courts have more or less agreed, suggesting that the prosecutors’ presentation was regrettable but that there was ample evidence of Ms. Andrew’s guilt.

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, for instance, said in 2007 that it was “struggling to find any relevance” for much of the contested evidence but added that “even so, the introduction of this evidence was harmless.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit said last year that it shared the state court’s “concerns about some of the ‘sexual and sexualizing’ evidence admitted at trial” but that Ms. Andrew could not overcome the high hurdles to challenging a state-court conviction in federal court.

Ms. Andrew’s boyfriend, James Pavatt, admitted to shooting her husband and said he had acted alone. But there was reason to think Ms. Andrew was involved, as part of a plot to obtain the proceeds of a life insurance policy, and the authorities charged both of them with capital murder. Mr. Pavatt was also sentenced to death, and he is scheduled to be executed in July.

In a partial dissent from the state court’s ruling in 2007, Judge Arlene Johnson , the only woman on the court at the time, said she would have let Ms. Andrew’s conviction stand. But, she wrote, “I find it impossible to say with confidence that the death penalty here was not imposed as a consequence of improper evidence and argument” that served “to trivialize the value of her life in the minds of the jurors.”

In dissent last year from the 10th Circuit’s decision, Judge Robert E. Bacharach went further, saying he would have overturned not only her death sentence but also her conviction.

“The state focused from start to finish on Ms. Andrew’s sex life,” Judge Bacharach wrote. “This focus portrayed Ms. Andrew as a scarlet woman, a modern Jezebel, sparking distrust based on her loose morals. The drumbeat on Ms. Andrew’s sex life continued in closing argument, plucking away any realistic chance that the jury would seriously consider her version of events.”

Ms. Babcock said a male defendant would not have been treated as Ms. Andrew had been. “It’s inconceivable that the prosecution would dangle his favorite pair of boxers in front of the jury,” she said, “and argue that they proved his guilt.”

Adam Liptak covers the Supreme Court and writes Sidebar, a column on legal developments. A graduate of Yale Law School, he practiced law for 14 years before joining The Times in 2002. More about Adam Liptak

Homeless man accused of killing 3 relatives in Pa. standoff will face death penalty — but governor won’t allow executions

T he Pennsylvania district attorney prosecuting the homeless man accused of killing three relatives last month announced she would seek the death penalty against the suspect who said he could only “pray to God” following his first court appearance Wednesday.

Andre Gordon Jr. is facing murder charges in the March 16 fatal shootings of his stepmother, teen sister and mother of his kids during a shocking crime spree that was carried out across two states.

“I am putting this defendant on notice,” District Attorney Jennifer Schorn said in court Wednesday, according to the Bucks County Courier.

Schorn explained she made the quick declaration because of the “multiple killing and grave risk to others.”

“We had an opportunity to speak to the family and get their position,” she told reporters outside.

“Time will tell ultimately how this case unfolds. But we had to certify before formal arraignment.”

The state has not killed an inmate convicted of murder since 1999.

While Schorn is requesting the death penalty, Gov. Josh Shapiro has said he would not allow executions in the state while he’s in office.

Gordon, 26, allegedly carjacked a vehicle in Trenton, New Jersey and then drove across the Pennsylvania border where he shot and killed his stepmother, Karen Gordon, 52, and 13-year-old sister Kera Gordon in a Levittown home, police said.

He then went to a different home in the same town where cops said he killed Taylor Daniel, the 25-year-old mother of his two children, and also attacked the children’s grandmother with a rifle, leaving her injured.

The two kids were present during the shooting, police have said.

He then carjacked another vehicle and hightailed it back to New Jersey before being captured by police.

He waived extradition back to Pennsylvania earlier on Wednesday.

In his first court appearance, Gordon, who didn’t have an attorney with him, appeared confused in front of Judge John Galloway.

When Galloway asked if he understood it was a preliminary hearing to read the charges, Gordon replied, “Not really.”

He then said “Yes, sir” when the judge repeated himself.

The defendant was remanded.

When reporters asked him outside if he had anything to say, he softly muttered, “Pray, pray to God.”

A motive for the fatal attacks is unknown.  

With Post wires