Sentenced, confined, and waiting. They know what punishment they’ve received, and will still spend decades in a cell awaiting it. Living in constant fear of when they will finally be executed. According to the DPIC, they aren’t allowed to participate in educational and employment programs; their time outside of a cell can be as low as less than an hour a day. This anxiety is just enough to spark delusions and insanity within the minds of inmates on death row, called the death row phenomenon. They are provided the ideal conditions to mentally and physically rot away. Do they deserve this horror?

Between 1930 and 2013, a total of 5,218 inmates were executed under civil authority, claims the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Many argue that capital punishment is an appropriate punishment for serious criminals and those who are given this sentence are deserving of it. It’s common to believe that those who take a life deserve to lose theirs. How do we measure evil and identify those who deserve to be murdered?

The crimes committed by death row inmates are extraordinary and difficult to define, meaning outstanding controversy in whether or not those on death row truly deserve capital punishment or not. We personally don’t know or understand the circumstances surrounding any particular case, so how could anyone have any valid reason for thinking someone deserves this punishment? We also must ask our government, is capital punishment narrowing the amount of crime in The United States? Many agree that it has no solid effect on crime deterrence. Although the death penalty is reserved for serious criminals, it is actually true that capital punishment is not moral or effective.

They say the crimes death row inmates commit are serious enough to earn them execution. It’s true that they are significant and large-scale crimes, like terrorism, murder, espionage, etc. Although they are grave crimes, we have to consider the perpetrator as a human being. When crimes of this caliber are committed, the public tends to dehumanize the perpetrator without any knowledge on that particular criminal.

In many cases, we know of circumstances that could influence a person to commit crimes or other dangerous behaviors. The most relevant circumstance, when it comes to such consequential crimes, is mental illness. Mental illness is a highly complex issue within the Federal Justice System. Who knows if they are truly mentally unstable? Although, in a few cases, the presence of mental illness in a perpetrator is clearly apparent. Such as the recent case of John Ferguson, who was convicted of murdering eight people in two separate incidents in the late 70s. Ferguson had reportedly dealt with severe mental illness for a long time prior to the murders. He was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic, delusional, and aggressive. And also declared "dangerous and cannot be released under any circumstances" by his short-term mental health doctor in 1975. Despite his blatant psychosis, Ferguson was executed on August 5th, 2013 (deathpenaltyinfo).

Another circumstance we must consider is the possibility of false accusations. There is a chance someone who's innocent or not directly involved with a crime to be sentenced the death penalty. Since 1973, approximately 150 death row inmates have been exonerated due to lack of evidence and false accusations (deathpenaltyinfo). Despite all of these things that could affect serious cases, we could simply ask, do they deserve to die? Humanity would typically make you lean towards no. Although, nowadays significant trials are publicized and often the press will release exaggerated or false information. Often times, the public's knowledge can become skewed and biased. Thus, creating hatred and more false information surrounding the perpetrator, that could directly hinder a trial. Unfortunately, this is considerably one of the most controversial questions of our time.

We must also consider the costs of capital punishment. A singular case can cost over $1 million; for example, in Kansas, the average is $1.26 million. Currently, in California, the annual costs of death penalty cases are $137 million per year; this could change to $11.5 million per year if lifetime incarceration replaced capital punishment (Amnesty). Some may say that spending twelve times as much money than necessary is worth it in the long run if that means that we can make sure that these criminals never do harm or damage ever again, but is it really? Diverting these funds takes money from crime control measures like crime prevention, mental health treatment, and many other things. Putting money toward things like crime prevention so that we could stop crime in its tracks and not need to have capital punishment should be our main priority instead of keeping capital punishment around.
When facing the possibility of the death penalty, the question of morality must be brought up. Is what is about to be done moral or immoral? It is true that many of the crimes committed by the accused are immoral, but it is also immoral to punish them with another crime. Taking one’s life, no matter what they have done, is wrong, and no one should have the power to do that.

In defense of capital punishment, one may say that it deters crime, but it is actually true that it does not. There is no evidence whatsoever that it deters crime of any nature. Southern states deliver 80% of sentences, yet they have higher murder rates than other regions of the country (ProCon). With this information, one could say that capital punishment actually increases crime rates. Most, if not all, of the information supplied by research groups is inaccurate due to inappropriate methods of gathering data. These groups do not consider every single factor and do not correctly compare things, such as murder rates to death sentence rates.

Overall, capital punishment isn't morally sound or effective for justice. When we think of death row inmates, we cannot automatically assume they are deserving of that punishment. We categorize all criminals as monsters without recognizing that things happen and people are people. Not only is it inhumane to assume guilt and convict, but it's not even doing anything to prevent other crimes. Nor is it cost effective. These are people too; no one should be killed as a punishment. Rather than using the death penalty, we could utilize our "life without parole" sentence. They are still subjected to life in confinement but receive time to reflect and improve. This option also opens up the possibility of those who are falsely sentenced to fight for their freedom and continue to appeal his sentence. Death is not a punishment for people, and no one is powerful enough to decide what constitutes execution.