Do we really need to kill in order to punish criminals and protect society? Many people say that we should keep the death penalty, but execution is not a solution. There are alternative ways to punish people. The death penalty should be abolished because it is wrong in many ways.
One reason why the death penalty should be abolished is because it goes against the eight amendment. The eight amendment prevents cruel and unusual punishment. So what is the death penalty good for? Killing someone because they killed another is wrong. Just like two wrongs don’t make a right. There have been cased were people who are innocent die because of false evidence or poor defense. Once an inmate is executed nothing can be done to make the amends if a mistake has been made. “We build bridges, knowing that statically some workers will be killed during construction; we take great precautions to reduce the number of unintended fatalities. But wrongful executions are preventable risk” (www.deathpenaltyinfo.edu). If we substitute a sentence of life without parole, we meet the needs of punishment and protection without risking any mistakes. We live in a country, which is run by laws and amendments. By not abolishing the death penalty we are not abiding to the rule and we going against the constitution.
Another reason the death penalty should be abolished because it “condemns the innocent to die”(www.nodeathpenalty.org). Society takes many risks where innocent lives can be lost. There have been 416 documented cases of innocent persons who have been convicted and given a death sentence. Why should innocent people die? Even if a person is not innocent their punishment should not be death. How many innocent people are we going to kill before we realize the death penalty should be abolished? Not only is the death penalty killing the innocent but the mentally retarded. The execution of the insane, someone who does not understand the reason for, or the realty of, his or her punishment violates the U.S. constitution (Ford v Wain Wright). Thirty-four mentally retarded inmates have been executed. How can we kill people who are not capable of understand what they do? There was one case in particular in which a retarded person was sentenced to execution. Ricky Ray Rector had no understanding of what was about to happen to him. “as part of his last meal, he requested pie for his dessert, but explained he would eat it when he came back”( www.nodeathpenalty.org). What kind of society do we live in, in which we punish those who are mentally retarded with death?
The death penalty also punishes the poor. If you can afford good legal representation, you will not end up on death row. In some cases people are innocent but because of their financial situation they cannot be provided with a good lawyer. Over 90 percent of defendants charged with capital crimes cannot hire an experienced attorney. They the dependants on the “quality of the lawyer assigned by the state, many whom lack experience in capital cases or are so under paid that they fail to investigate properly”(www.deathpenaltyinfo.edu). A poorly represented defendant is more likely to be convicted and sentenced to the death penalty. In 1996 Clinton cut federal funding to twenty legal resources centers, which provided counsel to poor defendants. All of the centers that received this funding have shut down. How are defendants who are poor going to be able to get a fair trail? There was a case in which 500 people burned to death in Ford Pinto crashes. Ford motor company knew that the rear gas tanks tended to puncture even in low speed crashes. Ford made a calculation that it could save millions of dollars if they installed an $11 safety device that prevented the gas tank ruptures. The company still didn’t bother to add in the piece. Many people lost their lives due to this but you would never catch an executive of Ford Motor Company on death row. The wealthy do not get punished.
The death penalty can also be said as racist. More than 75 percent on federal death are non-white. Only 37 of the over 18,000 executions a white person was being punished for killing a black person. If we are going to punish people we should be fair. The 1972 Furman V. Georgia case abolished the death penalty for four years on the grounds that “capital punishment was rife with racial disparities”(www.nodeathpenlty.org). Racial disparities have been shown to exist over the history of the death penalty. The death penalty is racist because it appears to count white lives as more valuable than blacks”(www.deathpenaltyinfo.edu). Studies have shown that the death penalty is far more likely to show where a white person is murdered than a black person. People die because they were wrongfully accused because of their race. Who are we to determine how long a person should live?
The death penalty is not a” deterrent to violet crime” which means it does not help lower the crime rate. The death penalty has not been shown to be effective in the reduction of the homicide rate according to (www.deathpenaltyinfo.edu). More executions, more murders. An “FBI study shows that stats which have abolished the death penalty averaged lower murder rates than other stats which have not”(www.nodeathpenalty.org). Those 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. Murders are committed in the moments of passions, anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively”(www.nodeathpenalty.com). Most murders are committed under severe drug and alcohol abuse. Execution is not a real solution. By killing a person because he or she has committed a crime is just benefiting them. Once in prison they settle into a routine and are less of a threat to commit violet crimes. If we give sentences of life with out parole we are still insuring the safety of society without taking a life.
Capital punishment lowers the value of human life. It is based on a need for revenge. It reinforces the idea that killing can be a proper way of responding to who have wronged us. Although our first instinct is to inflict pain on someone who has wronged us, it is not the answer. The death penalty is not” a just response for talking a life”(www.deathpenaltyinfo.edu). It is wrong for the state to kill in order to show the killing is wrong, because then the state will be committing the same time. “ The death penalty denies the sacredness of human life. Life is so precious that nobody should ever be killed, even by the state”(www.geocities.com). Executions are a form pf payback. Many victims’ families appose using the death penalty.” 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 realized that such a killing is simply vengeance and it was vengeance that killed Julie”(www.nodeathpenalty.org) Using an execution to try to right the wrong of people’s loss causes them more pain. The notion of an eye for an eye’ or a life for a life is something that our country has never believed in.” We do not allow the torturing the torture, or raping the raping the rapist”(www.deathpenaltyinfo.edu). Allowing the death penalty is allowing people to get revenge and does not benefit our society in any way.
In conclusion the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment. We live in a society that preaches justice, but we allow our government to kill people. By not abolishing the death penalty we are creating more chaos, the death penalty does not solve anything. Do we really need to kill to prove a point?

Registered Members, login
Join now, it's free

Property of EssaySwap.com