The death penalty has been around for a very long time, dating all the way back to the eighteenth century B.C. One side of the controversy sees the death penalty as the criminal getting what they deserve, wherein the other side sees the death penalty as a barbaric and hypocritical way of handling crime. This topic stirs arguments of moralities, financial factors, and different ideas on what is considered to be the right punishment for a crime. The death penalty is supposedly effective in enforcing punishment on criminals, however, it should be abolished and substituted with life imprisonment.

  Contrary to common belief, the death penalty actually costs more than life imprisonment. Carrying out a single death sentence for a convicted criminal costs two to five times more than that putting that criminal in prison for the rest their life. These costs include investigation costs, security costs, number of trials, lawyer fees, and the cost of processing evidence. It also costs more to house inmates who are on death row, who are held in separate sections, in individual cells. Therefore, life imprisonment is a reasonable alternative to the death penalty, as it can save tens of millions of dollars. Not only does it save money, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, but it can be considered as a better consequence of committing a crime. When a criminal is put to death, their suffering is over in an instant, wherein if a criminal is sentenced to life in prison, they are forced to face the consequences of their crime for the rest of their life.

The death penalty is said to be effective in discouraging people from committing capital crimes, the argument being that potential murderers will “think twice” before risking being sentenced to the death penalty and losing their own lives. However, this is an impractical and thoughtless reason. In an article called "Is It Time to Execute the Death Penalty?” by H. Lee Sarokin, a former court judge, he says “"In my view deterrence plays no part whatsoever. Persons contemplating murder do not sit around the kitchen table and say I won't commit this murder if I face the death penalty, but I will do it if the penalty is life without parole.” Regardless of the punishment, criminals are in a state of mind wherein they will not be thinking about what is rational and what is not. Murders are committed largely through passion or under the strong influence of drugs or alcohol. Therefore, the criminal will not be deliberating on how “harsh” their punishment will be. Additionally, in a study conducted by Professor Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock of the University of Colorado, it was found that 88% of leading criminologists in the US do not believe that the death penalty is an effective restraint to crime and 78% said that the death penalty does not lower the murder rate. (theproscons.com)  The death penalty does not serve to prevent crime, as criminals who commit these crimes do not think about the consequences, nor do the potential consequences of their crimes make them think twice.

The death penalty, to some, is seen as “closure” for the family members of victims. This, however, is met with multiple instances that oppose this argument. The Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights, or the MVFHR, is an international organization of family members of murder victims and of the executed, who oppose the death penalty. (mvfhr.org) A member of this organization, Jo Berry, lost her father when he was killed by a bomb planted by a man named Pat Magee. Berry said "I am passionate about abolishing the death penalty worldwide as I do not believe killing the perpetrators helps anyone. It does not assist the healing of the victim, but actually creates more pain and violence and delays the healing. Of course I felt huge rage and pain when my father was killed, but I wanted to end the cycle of violence and revenge in me. Hurting another human being would only hurt me and keep me as a victim.” Another member of the MVFHR is Milton Jones, who lost his son when he was beaten to death with baseball bats by two young men. Jones said “At first, we felt that we wanted the killers dead. But at some point, I looked at what being in that frame of mind was doing to me and my family. What does it make me if I continue to harbor those feelings? It makes me no better than the person who did the crime. All the death penalty really does is perpetuate hurt and pain and violence.” In these two cases, the family members of the victims did not wish to sentence the criminal to death because it would not do any good for anyone. Therefore, the death penalty does not provide supposed closure for the victims’ family members.

  Many are familiar with the Boston Marathon Bombings of 2013 in which brothers Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev were responsible for the bomb attack that killed three spectators and wounded over 126 people. Tamerlan died in a hospital after being shot multiple times in the shootout between the brothers and the police, and Dzhokhar was wounded and taken into custody. He is now on trial and the jury is deliberating on the punishment: death or a life sentence in prison. One of the victims of the Boston Marathon Bombing, who was killed, was eight-year-old Martin Richard. According to an article in The Christian Science Monitor his parents, Bill and Denise Richard, wrote in an essay featured in The Boston Globe, saying that the death penalty would only lead to lengthy appeals and elongate their suffering loss. They stated "We know that the government has its reasons for seeking the death penalty, but the continued pursuit of that punishment could bring years of appeals and prolong reliving the most painful day of our lives." Jennifer Lemmerman is the sister of Sean Collier, a police officer who was shot to death by the Tsarnaev brothers. She says "I can’t imagine I’ll ever forgive him for what he did to my brother, to my family, and I’ll have to live with that for the rest of my life, whether he is on this earth or not…But I also can’t imagine that killing in response to killing would ever bring me peace or justice. Just my perspective, but enough is enough. I choose to remember Sean for the light that he brought. No more darkness." (csmonitor.com) In this instance, the family members of the victims do not wish to sentence Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to death, as it would not benefit anyone.

The death penalty, although it reduces inmate population and assures that executed criminals won’t be able to commit future crimes, should be abolished. A life sentence in prison can serve as a reasonable replacement. The death penalty is more costly than life sentencing in prison and can be seen as an “easy way out.” Not only does it have no effect on preventing crimes, but it also does not provide the families of the victims any sense of closure or justice, as evident in the case of the Boston Marathon Bombings. The solution to this is to become involved which one can do by writing your State Representative or Senator, elaborating on the reasons why you believe the death penalty should be abolished.