Thirty-two states allow it. Six of ten Americans approve it. Fifty-eight countries authorize it. Mentioning it at Christmas dinner can transform a polite family gathering to an inflamed shouting match. The death penalty, a common punishment of criminals since the earliest recorded execution in eighteenth century B.C. Babylon, has become an issue of increasing controversy following its reestablishment by the Supreme Court in 1976 (“Part I”). Both sides— those who uphold capital punishment as necessary to our justice system and those who deny it as a violation of freedom and right to life—cite dramatic and heart-wrenching stories, distort facts about its monetary cost, and manipulate emotions to gain the upper hand as they battle either for the abolition or firmer enforcement of the death penalty. Which side, then, is correct? Should the United States continue to carry out capital punishment?

 A necessary method of justice, the death penalty fortifies our justice system and acts as a deterrent to any who are considering crime. When a person perpetrates such an unspeakable crime as taking the life of another, it is proper and just that their punishment should be proportionate to the felony which they committed. After all, “[a] society that doesn’t deliver justice is a society which will collapse” (“Top Arguments”). Without capital punishment, there is no suitable method to ensure that murderers pay for their crimes. Undoubtedly, no rational human being enjoys the thought of killing someone, but by perpetrating homicides with full knowledge of the repercussions, the murderers have accepted and even voluntarily invited the death penalty upon themselves. “Human life is, indeed[,] sacred, which is why it beho[o]ves us to punish those who take it” (Anderson). Besides this, capital punishment also serves as a formidable disincentive to murder, one execution of a criminal saving three to eighteen lives (Anderson). When Illinois suspended the death penalty in 2000, homicides in the state rose at an alarming rate of 150 per year for the next four years (Anderson). Death terrifies. If a murderer considers the threat of the death penalty before striking the deadly blow, many innocent lives could be preserved—but does any killer logically reason through their crime before committing it? Capital punishment might strengthen our justice system, but as the majority of murderers are psychologically imbalanced, does it truly act as a deterrent to crime? 

Even disregarding the benefits the death penalty provides our justice system, the cost of a life sentence is vastly more substantial than the price of capital punishment. As during life imprisonment the government must pay for the food, housing, care, and protection of the criminal, one estimation shows the average cost of a life sentence is roughly three million dollars in government money (Anderson). In contrast, a short duration on death row and subsequent execution of a criminal only requires around 1.5 million dollars. “[W]e simply can't afford to keep these people alive nor do we have any responsibility to do so” (“Top Arguments”). However, this study does not take all factors of the death penalty into account, as “[d]ue to the extra measures taken in judicial proceedings, lawyer fees, extended trials, and expert witnesses, costs end up being higher” (Dye). With these government-funded procedures also taken into account, the average cost of the death penalty climbs above three million dollars (Dye). [3] Consequently, with the 8,300 death penalties passed between 1973 and 2011, taxpayers payed roughly 25 billion dollars (Dye). The state of Oregon estimated that they could save over 2.3 million dollars a year by eliminating the death penalty (“Facts”), while California evaluated that they could save around ninety million dollars a year (Dye). Thus, with the many years necessary to house criminals while their case is appealed and their lawyers fight for their lives, the cost of the death penalty actually far outweighs the expense of a life sentence. 

Besides this, the death penalty itself is a twisting of justice, taking the life and constitutional freedom of someone else and placing it under the unavoidably biased jurisdiction of others. Despite the eloquent statement that the punishment of death is merely proportionate to the crime, the death penalty is in essence a legal method of exacting revenge, and as Mahatma Gandhi stated, “An eye for an eye will make the world go blind.” While it is entirely reasonable that family, friends, and victims of a criminal should want to see him punished or simply never see him again, the justice system is not a tool to quell passion or satisfy a thirst for vengeance, and with our advanced society, a sentence of life imprisonment ensures that a criminal will never murder again. Besides this, “[i]f we are to agree that taking the life of another human being can be categorized as the upmost heinous of acts, how can we justify treating such a crime with a punishment that mirrors the very thing we so adamantly condemn?” (Dye) Thus, the death penalty is also blatant moral hypocrisy (Dye). In addition, capital punishment ensures that a criminal will never have the ability to reform and repent of his actions. Many murders are committed impulsively and in the spur of the moment, the perpetrators often under the influence of drugs or alcohol and sometimes aided by mental illness. With the death penalty, there is no chance for rehabilitation on the part of the criminal or even repentance on the part of our justice system. In Alabama for every five executions there is one exoneration (McElwee). As these people were truly innocent of the crime they were accused of, the justice system, in essence, murdered them. Shockingly, in endorsing capital punishment, the United States associates itself with China, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Afghanistan1 (McElwee).

Undoubtedly, the death penalty contorts the meaning of justice by acting as a tool for revenge, giving people legal control over freedom and life that no one is entitled to. 

Thirty-two states allow it, but eighteen states forbid it. Six of ten Americans approve it, but the remaining four adamantly oppose it. Fifty-eight countries authorize it, but 137 proscribe it. While obviously highly controversial, the question of capital punishment can only have one answer: it mocks morality, twists justice, and sucks freedom from any society that uses it. No government has the right to take away what it cannot restore when it wants to (Anton Chekhov). Even if later declared utterly innocent, those whom our justice system has executed can never reclaim their lives. If our laws were founded on legal revenge, it could not be denied that murderers would deserve death. However, if a society is to call itself truly free, its arm of justice cannot deal out revenge. As J. R. R. Tolkien put it, “Many that live deserve 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.” While perhaps necessary at one point in history, capital punishment is now useless to society except as a method of satisfaction and revenge and should be eliminated. Taking the God-given life from anyone is abominable in any circumstances. It is time we listen to the warning cry that echoes through the valleys of the eighteen states, the four of ten Americans, and the 137 countries.

Works Cited
Dye, Tracy. “Top 10 Reasons the Death Penalty Should Be Abolished.” ListLand, 14 Jan. 2015.

“The Facts: 13 Reasons to Oppose the Death Penalty.” Oadp.org, oadp.org/facts/13-reasons.  McElwee, Sean. “It's Time to Abolish the Death Penalty.” TheHuffingtonPost.

“Part I: History of the Death Penalty.” Deathpenaltyinfo.org, Death Penalty Information Center.

Smith, Oliver. “Mapped: The 58 Countries That Still Have the Death Penalty.” Telegraph.co/uk, Telegraph Media Group, 1 Sept. 2016.

 “Top Arguments for the Death Penalty.” Soapboxie.com, HubPages Inc., 23 May.