In this paper I will be discussing the Pros and Cons of the death penalty and whether or

not it should be allowed in our country as a means of punishment for criminal behavior. There
are a lot of different aspects that weigh in on this topic that make it controversial. I will be
discussing various aspects of it, such as the morality of it, its effectiveness, and whether or not
its worth the money that it takes to go through with it.
According to an article published called Capital Punishment: the case for justice.
"Society is justly ordered when each person receives what is due to him. Crime disturbs this just
order, for the criminal takes from people their lives, peace, liberties, and worldly goods in order
to give himself undeserved benefits. Deserved punishment protects society morally by restoring
this just order, making the wrongdoer pay a price equivalent to the harm he has done. This is
retribution, not to be confused with revenge, which is guided by a different motive. In retribution
the spur is the virtue of indignation, which answers injury with injury for public good...
Retribution is the primary purpose of just punishment as such... Rehabilitation, protection, and
deterrence have a lesser status in punishment than retribution."(J. Budziszewski, PhD) I feel that
this article brings up some very valid points that make the death penalty seem morally
acceptable. Its just like the old saying goes, what goes around comes around, some people go
through their lives thinking they can cheat the system as much as they want but in reality there
does need to be consequences for their actions. Some men fear death more than anything else
and that could be a deterrent from committing such awful crimes as murder and rape.
On the other hand, some of the cons to the death penalty are outlined clearly in an article
by Raymond A. Schroth he argues "Retribution is just another word for revenge, and the desire
for revenge is one of the lowest human emotions perhaps sometimes understandable, but not
really a rational response to a critical situation. To kill the person who has killed someone close
to you is simply to continue the cycle of violence which ultimately destroys the avenger as well
as the offender. That this execution somehow give 'closure' to a tragedy is a myth. Expressing
ones violence simply reinforces the desire to express it. Just as expressing anger simply makes
us more angry. It does not drain away. It contaminates the otherwise good will which any human
being needs to progress in love and understanding.(Schroth, Raymond) I feel that he also brings
up a lot of valid points in his argument. The fact that youre killing someone because they killed
almost seems hypocritical and its probably not going to take away the feelings of anger and
frustration that you have about the situation. But at the same time I do feel that it can still bring
someone closure if the person that is getting the death penalty is still a threat to them and they
are in fear of their lives.
Another big controversy with the death penalty is the cost of it, according to an article
written by Dudley Sharp, "Many opponents present, as fact, that the cost of the death penalty is
so expensive (at least $2 million per case?), that we must choose life without parole ('LWOP') at
a cost of $1 million for 50 years. Predictably, these pronouncements may be entirely false. JFA
[Justice for All] estimates that LWOP cases will cost $1.2 million-$3.6 million more than
equivalent death penalty cases. There is no question that the up front costs of the death penalty
are significantly higher than for equivalent LWOP cases. There also appears to be no question
that, over time, equivalent LWOP cases are much more expensive... than death penalty cases.
Opponents ludicrously claim that the death penalty costs, over time, 3-10 times more than
LWOP." It is true that you always hear people criticize that the death penalty is far too expensive
and should be done away with, but the fact of the matter is that its also incredibly expensive to
keep someone in prison for life, and either way, tax payers have to take care of these
criminals.(Sharp, Dudley)
But on the other side of this argument Richard C. Deiter explains to Colorado State
House of Representatives "In the course of my work, I believe I have reviewed every state and
federal study of the costs of the death penalty in the past 25 years. One element is common to all
of these studies: They all concluded that the cost of the death penalty amounts to a net expense to
the state and the taxpayers. Or to put it differently, the death penalty is clearly more expensive
than a system handling similar cases with a lesser punishment. [It] combines the costliest parts of
both punishments: lengthy and complicated death penalty trials, followed by incarceration for
life... Everything that is needed for an ordinary trial is needed for a death penalty case, only more
so:
More pre-trial time...
More experts...
Twice as many attorneys...
Two trials instead of one will be conducted: one for guilt and one for punishment.
And then will come a series of appeals during which the inmates are held in the high security of
death row."(Dieter, Richard) I feel that his points of argument are much more valid than Dudley
Sharps. It makes sense what he says in there. It does take a lot more work to put someone on
death row then it does to sentence them to life in prison. And even when someone does get put
on death row, they still wait for the longest time before they are executed which also costs a lot
of money. So I think that it would overall be much more expensive to use the death penalty than
to sentence someone to life in prison.
According to an article found on deathpenaltyinfo.org, Since 1973, over 140 people have been
released from death row with evidence of their innocence. (Staff Report, House Judiciary
Subcommittee on Civil &Constitutional Rights, Oct. 1993, with updates from DPIC). From
1973-1999, there was an average of 3 exonerations per year. From 2000-2011, there was an
average of 5 exonerations per year. (deathpenaltyinfo.org) That is pretty eye opening to me. It
goes to show that there are a lot of flaws in our court system. It seems like the rich are protected
whether or not they are guilty and the poor and convicted whether or not they are guilty. So
much of it comes down to what kind of legal representation you can afford, because you get what
you pay for. In another article found on deathpenalty.org it supports these same ideas by saying
Scientific studies have consistently failed to demonstrate that executions deter people from
committing crime anymore than long prison sentences. Moreover, states without the death
penalty have much lower murder rates. The South accounts for 80% of US executions and has
the highest regional murder rate. (deathpenalty.org) So even for those that argue that it is a
deterrent from committing crime, it obviously doesnt seem like it. Murderers will commit
murder, regardless of the consequences.
When I first started this assignment I thought the death penalty was very effective, but
after doing some research I have found that it really doesnt do as much justice as it should.
There are too many innocent people convicted and too many guilty people who get away because
of legal representation and the fact that no jury wants to be responsible for putting someone to
death with the slight chance that they might be innocent. I think the death penalty could be
effective, but not with the way our court system is set up, granted there are people out there who
are a danger to society and need to be put to death but the legal process takes too long and isnt
as efficient as it should be. It costs too much money, doesnt give enough retribution and isnt
completely accurate and fair. So I think the death penalty should be done away with.
Works cited:
http://www.deathpenalty.org/section.php?id=13
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002000