The death penalty is defined as a sentence passed down by a judge to a person convicted of a “capital crime” such as murder. The death penalty is legal in 32 states with approximately 3,095 people waiting to be executed. I am against the death penalty because innocent people are put to death, it’s not an immediate humane punishment, it is delivered inconsistently across states, and there is racial and economic discrimination.

There are five options for the death penalty: lethal injection, electrocution, firing squad, hanging, and gassing. All of these practices are inhumane and violate the 8th amendment of no cruel and unusual punishment. This makes it even more tragic when noted that innocent people are put to death. Since 1978, 142 inmates have been freed from death row, some only minutes from execution.

Counterarguments say that innocent people are rarely put to death and that every effort is made to assure that justice is upheld. These opponents do not see the death penalty as murder; they see it as punishment. I would have to argue that there is no 100% guarantee that innocent people are not going to be punished. If an innocent person is put to death, it is murder. The death penalty is an outdated barbaric practice that allows a judge and jury to determine the life or death of a person.

Men are mere mortals who make mistakes and look at information though the lens of their own experiences. These experiences color how they react and perceive information. Deciding to put a person to death should be a sure thing with the criminal being 100% guilty with no doubts whatsoever. Just the fact that men who are not perfect are making this determination makes the death penalty and unfair sentence. Since humans are not perfect, the risk of executing an innocent person can never be eliminated. Even one innocent person being put to death is a miscarriage of justice.

Opponents also say that the death penalty is a deterrent for others who may want to commit the same crime and that it is the one way to make sure that a person will never commit another crime. Although, it sounds like a valid argument, there’s no scientific proof that this is true. Life in prison I without parole is also another way to assure that a person is unable to commit another crime.

The death penalty is only a deterrent if a crime is committed in a state with the death penalty. If a crime is committed across states, the lines are even blurrier. There needs to be a consistent punishment enforced across every state. There are states that go back and forth with their laws and punishment is handed out arbitrarily depending on the year the crime was committed.

Most of the time, it takes decades for the death penalty to be carried out. Years can go by with the inmate receiving intensive therapy and rehabilitation. The criminal has opportunity to become a different person; overcome addictions, and find solace and forgiveness in religion yet still be put to death. Even though the criminal may have committed heinous crimes, the person may have changed so much that he or she isn’t the same person. Life in prison is a fair punishment because it recognizes the crime that was committed but still maintains that the worth of a man’s soul is great. Anyone who raises kids or trains dogs knows that consequences need to be immediate and connected to the offense or learning and change will not happen. Death penalty after years of imprisonment violates this very idea. Why imprison a person, feed him, educate and rehabilitate him and then kill him? It’s not a sound financial decision and makes no sense!

The greatest support against the death penalty is the fact that the death penalty is an arbitrary process. Much depends on the skill of the lawyer, the make-up of the jury, and the attitude of the judge. There is not much rhyme or reason why a serial killer gest life in prison while a man who murders one person gets the death penalty. There is no system, no organization, no rules for how a sentence is determined. It’s like a game of Russian Roulette. Poor and uneducated people are more likely to receive the death penalty than a wealthy person. For example, O.J. Simpson was able to get away with murder because he was able to afford an expensive legal team. Most people, especially poor people, are given public defenders that are not always competent.

A civilized country respects human life and does not deliberately kill human beings. The American Civil Liberties Union writes, “An execution is a violent public spectacle of official homicide, and one that endorses killing to solve social problems – the worst possible example to set for the citizenry, and especially children.” How do we teach our children to communicate and solve problems when we as a country resort to murder as an alternative?

References
Case Against the Death Penalty. https://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/case-against-death-penalty
Death Penalty Focus. http://www.deathpenalty.org/section.php?id=13
Reasons to Be Against the Death Penalty. http://www.antideathpenalty.org/reasons.html