Cerminaro 1

Zoe Cerminaro

Professor Reynolds

English 1101 R.22

14 November 2020

Never again: The End of the Death Penalty

Imagine, sitting in a jail cell for a crime you didn’t

commit, let alone on death row. Ruben Cantu, a twenty-six-year-

old innocent man was executed in 1993. Cantu, at the time was

seventeen, when he was accused of robbing a store, and then

shooting a man nine times, as well as shooting Juan Moreno.

Moreno, the only eye witness, testified seeing Cantu at the

scene, after being showed photos of Cantu three times by police.

Sam D. Millsap Jr., the district attorney, charged Cantu with

murder and included the death penalty, later stating

That he never should have sought the death penalty in a case

based on testimony from a witness who identified a suspect

only after the police showed him Mr. Cantu's photograph

three times (New York Times A18).

Sadly, Moreno later told authorities it was not Ruben Cantu who

committed this crime. He said he felt, “pressured and afraid”

(New York Times A18). But, because of one eye witness, who was

shot, impaired, and lied, this ended an innocent man’s life. This
 Cerminaro 2

is just one of many stories, where an innocent person was sent to

death, and years later proven innocent. Think for a moment. What

if your loved one was killed due to capital punishment and later

was proven innocent. This is exactly why capital punishment is

flawed: killing the innocent. I believe the death penalty should

be abolished because eye witness testimonies are unreliable, new

evidence can exonerate a person on death row, and the way death

penalties are carried out are cruel and unusual.

Eye witness testimonies play a crucial role in capital

punishment cases, as well as other criminal charges. In many

cases, you rely on a single person to correctly identify the so-

called “killer.” Eye witnesses are more often than not, the most

essential part. And to put your trust into one person’s memory,

which changes constantly over time, is over relying on the lack

of consistency. Not to mention, the witness’ mental state of mind

could influence how much he/she remembers. Many studies have

shown people with depression perform worse in memory activities

than people without it (Li). As witnesses are questioned, their

memory can change, or they may be influenced by the person

questioning them. As said by New Jersey Chief Justice Stuart

Rabner, the chance of identifying the incorrect person is very

real, and studies show the unreliability of eye witness

testimonies (Liptak 6). Isn’t it scary to think that your life

and future could potentially be in the hands of a person

 Cerminaro 3

recalling events that they don’t even accurately remember? James

Bain, a man who was in prison for thirty-five years, due to an

eye witness testimony, is a prime example (Liptak 6). He spent

almost one third of his life in prison because of someone’s

recollection of events. Thankfully he was exonerated due to DNA

evidence.

In the past, people have been put to death due to lack of

evidence. Exonerations are more likely because of DNA testing and

new evidence. Kirk Bloodsworth, was put on death row for raping

and killing a nine-year-old girl. On the day of the murder, five

eye witnesses said they saw Bloodsworth with the girl. A year

after his sentence, the prosecution was found to have kept

information from the defense, so Bloodsworth was retried, but

still found guilty (Evans). After Bloodsworths request for court

approval, his DNA was tested to see if it matched the crime scene

and in 1993 he was cleared of all charges and released. In some

instances, as mentioned above, the prosecution retains evidence,

that later gets revealed to the defense. This then results in a

new trial, or charges are dropped, meaning exoneration (Sherman).

“DNA also doubles the number of suspects who are identified,

arrested and prosecuted, according to the study, which was funded

by the National Institute of Justice” (Banda). DNA evidence has

now been used in reopening past cases, which results in the

release of prisoners.
 Cerminaro 4

Botched executions with lethal injections, are now coming to

light in cases of the death penalty. In some cases, it is known

to be very painful, and some inmates are even “accidently” awake.

This is cruel and unusual punishment. Even when some inmates

request to not have certain drugs used on them, courts override

them. Justice Sonya Sotomayer stated, “We have stopped being a

civilized nation and accepted barbarism” (Lyons). Since lethal

injection drugs do not have to be approved by the FDA, states can

import them from other countries (Price). The idea of using drugs

that have not been approved pokes at the Constitution, which

states there should be no cruel and unusual punishment. On the

topic of cruel and unusual punishment, in the case of Atkins v.

Virginia, a forensic psychologist evaluated Atkins, labeling him

as “intellectually disabled,” as well as having an IQ of fifty-

nine. The court where the hearing was held, stated they were “not

willing to commute Atkins’ sentence of death to life imprisonment

merely because of his IQ score” (De Muniz 1-61). This is a

disgrace. Executing the disabled is clearly unacceptable.

Although I strongly believe the death penalty should be

abolished, there are counterarguments. An “eye for an eye,” is a

very popular justification for keeping the death penalty. Current

public opinion show people believe a punishment should fit the

crime they committed (Twardawski 195-218). This idea is known as

retribution. Most notably, when you kill a person, you deserve to

 Cerminaro 5

be killed. This belief goes at least as far back as the Bible and

other ancient religions. Many people believe if a man were to

rape, and then kill a woman, the man himself should then be

killed. Like the instance of Steven Hayes, a man who raped a

mother and her two daughters, strangled them, beat them

repeatedly, and murdered them. “This is justice,” said the only

survivor of the terrible event after Hayes was executed (Jost

965-988).

Capital punishment is present in both the Eighth and

Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The Eighth

Amendment states “Nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted”

(The United States Constitution). The Constitution says you’re

allowed to put someone to death as long as it’s not cruel and

unusual. The Fourteenth Amendment, section one, states “Nor shall

any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,

without due process of law” (The United States Constitution).

This means each state has permission from the Constitution to use

the death penalty.

Even though humans are capable of committing horrendous

acts, revenge is morally wrong. One hundred forty-two countries

around the world have abolished capital punishment (Amnesty

International). I believe it is time for the United States to

 Cerminaro 6

join them. Times and beliefs have changed as the human race has

grown to accept the value of human life.

The Constitution in Article One Section Two states

“Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the

several states… excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all

other Persons” (The United States Constitution). At the time when

the Constitution was written, there were ideas many citizens

believed were right, but many years later are now known to be

wrong. Back when the Constitution was written in 1789, African

Americans were considered three fifths of a person. Just like

this example shows how the Constitution can be updated, the death

penalty can also be removed from the Constitution.

Ruben Cantu was robbed of his life because of an unreliable

eye witness. Kirk Bloodsworth was on death row for thirty-five

years because of an eye witness. Eye witness testimonies have

always all come down to memory, and influence over your memory.

This is one of the ways innocent people have been put on death

row and executed. You never truly can be one hundred percent

sure, if you accused the right person. That’s why DNA evidence

has had a huge impact on exonerations for innocent men and women

on death row. Lethal injections produced in countries not

approved by the FDA and sometimes inflicting pain, is cruel and

unusual punishment. The death penalty should be abolished and I

 Cerminaro 7

believe it is time to take action before another innocent person

dies.

Works Cited

"12 Years After Execution, Evidence of Innocence." New York

 Cerminaro 8

Times, 22 Nov. 2005, p. A18(L). Gale In Context: Opposing

Viewpoints, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A138975078/OVIC?

u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=1e505527. Accessed 13 Nov. 2020.

Li, Mi, et al. "Cognitive Behavioral Performance of Untreated

Depressed Patients with Mild Depressive Symptoms." PLoS ONE,

vol. 11, no. 1, 2016. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,

https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A439085027/OVIC?

u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=42326d40. Accessed 13 Nov. 2020.

Liptak, Adam. "Lyin' eyes: it turns out eyewitness IDs are often

unreliable. When the Supreme Court considers the issue next

month, it could give judges more authority to challenge

them." New York Times Upfront, vol. 144, no. 4, 24 Oct.

2011, p. 6+. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,

https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A271973806/OVIC?

u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=e2a53c48. Accessed 4 Nov. 2020.

Evans, Kim Masters. "Exonerations and Moratoriums." Capital

Punishment: Cruel and Unusual?, 2012 ed., Gale, 2012.

Information Plus Reference Series. Gale In Context:

Opposing Viewpoints,
 Cerminaro 9

https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ4189200108/OVIC?

u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=4acac4e0. Accessed 13 Nov. 2020.

Sherman, Amy. "FLORIDA ACLU SAYS STATE HAS 'THE MOST ERRORS AND

EXONERATIONS FROM DEATH ROW'." Tampa Bay Times [St.

Petersburg, FL], 2 June 2014. Gale In Context: Opposing

Viewpoints, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A370033024/OVIC?

u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=5b175627. Accessed 13 Nov. 2020.

Banda, P. Solomon. "State DNA Databases Help Solve Crimes." DNA

Databases, edited by Stefan Kiesbye, Greenhaven Press, 2012.

At Issue. Gale In Context: Opposing

Viewpoints, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010469218/OVIC

?u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=c53980b0. Accessed 14 Nov. 2020.

Originally published as "Police Use DNA to Solve Everyday

Property Crimes," AP Worldstream, 21 Oct. 2008.

Lyons, Christina L. "Death Penalty." CQ Researcher, 18 Oct.

2018,

library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqr_ht_death_penalty_2018.

Accessed on 14 Nov. 2020.

 Cerminaro 10

Price, Tom. "The Death Penalty." CQ Researcher, 1 Nov. 2019,

library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqr_ht_death_penalty_2019.

Accessed on 14 Nov. 2020.

DE MUNIZ, H. P. J. Sentenced to Death for Life: Essays on

Oregon’s Death Penalty. Willamette Law Review, [s. l.], v.

56, n. 1, p. 1–61, 2019. Disponível

em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=a9h&AN=143322307&site=ehost-live. Acesso em:

14 nov. 2020

TWARDAWSKI, M.; TANG, K. T. Y.; HILBIG, B. E. Is It All About

Retribution? The Flexibility of Punishment Goals. Social

Justice Research, [s. l.], v. 33, n. 2, p. 195–218, 2020.

DOI 10.1007/s11211-020-00352-x. Disponível

em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=a9h&AN=143328329&site=ehost-live. Acesso em:

14 nov. 2020.

Jost, Kenneth. "Death Penalty Debates." CQ Researcher, 19 Nov.

 Cerminaro 11

2010, pp. 965-988,

library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2010111900.

Accessed on 14 Nov. 2020.

“Amnesty International Global Report Death Sentences and

Executions 2019.” Amnesty International Ltd. April

2020.https://protect-

us.mimecast.com/s/i7LNC9rBllIk8vMpIoa5YR?

domain=amnesty.org/. Accessed on 14 Nov. 2020.

United States Constitution. Amend. XIV, Sec. 1.

United States Constitution. Amend. VIII.

United States Constitution. Art. I, Sec 2.