Argumentative essay on a topic: A case against death penalty in the United States

1. A Case against Death Penalty in the United States
Death penalty, abortion, euthanasia and same sex marriages are some of the controversial
issues that the society has had to grapple with for a long time. There has never been a consensus
as to which is the way forward to deal with the issues. Death penalty, for instance, which is the
topic that forms the basis of this discussion, has been scrapped from judicial systems and then
reinstated then scrapped again, and the cycle continues. The fact that the penalty has been
scrapped at some point in time shows that policy makers in the judicial system believe that death
sentence needs to be done away with. Conversely, it gets reintroduced because there are policy
makers who feel that the sentence will serve the interests of the society better than any other
alternatives. The United States, though its one nation, has several states which have never agreed
on the way forward as far as reinstating, banning, or scrapping this punishment option is
concerned. States of Alabama, California, Missouri and North Carolina allow death penalty.
Other states, including, but not limited to, Alaska, Connecticut and West Virginia have scrapped
the sentence from their justice systems (Burkhead, 2009). Despite lack of consensus among
different US states, one thing is certain, that death penalty is a controversial issue. It (the
sentence) rarely achieves its intended objectives. An alternative, for that matter, needs to be
sought.
Like all controversial issues, there are those that belong to either side of the divide; they
are those who vehemently support it and there are others who make a spirited fight to oppose it.
Both the proponents and opponents have their reasons for belonging to whichever side of the
debate. Most importantly, proponents argue that death sentence achieves one of the most
important goals of the society, and that is protecting lives (Garland, 2010). It is argued that death
sentence deters murderers, for instance, from committing murder. These proponents believe that

2. a criminal executed before the public, or whose news of execution reaches the public, serves as
an example to would be criminals (Burkhead, 2009).
Studies on whether death sentence deters crime; however, have never produced reliable
results. A study done by Isaac Ehrlich in 1973 showed that every death row criminal execution
saves lives of 7 people (Carozza, 2003). A researcher who asserts that death penalty deters crime
bears the burden of proving that this really happens. Ehrlich’s study and those of his students
have been discredited because they fail to show how the penalty that is death sentence deters
crime. Other researchers and academicians in the field of criminology think otherwise. William
Bowers, for instance, a criminologist at the university of Northeastern notes that death penalty
has the opposite effect, that of influencing crime (Burkhead, 2009). He argues that a society that
allows death penalty allows its members to become brutalized. Such members, because of the
fact that they are brutalized, are influenced to commit more heinous crimes, including murder.
The assertions of Bowers and others who oppose this kind of punishment are supported by
statistics. Statistics clearly show that US states with death penalty have higher numbers of
murders compared with those that have scrapped the practice out of their justice systems. This is
also true for the US compared with other countries that have banned the practice. Murder rates
are high in the US compared with countries that do not allow the practice in Europe and Canada
(Garland, 2010).
Secondly, proponents of death penalty affirm that the practice restores balance in the
society. Those who belong in this category argue that a person who kills must also be killed;
otherwise, there will be an imbalance in the society. What these proponents seem to say is that
the “eye for an eye”, “a life for life” culture similar to that of the ancient Jews is what the society
needs (Burkhead, 2009). This act, where murderers are made to pay with being murdered

3. themselves has been called in justice circles retribution. It is argued that executing a murderer or
a convict of whom no other alternative is sufficient, brings a case to closure (Carozza, 2003).
There are several attorneys who are known to throw their weight honestly behind this concept.
District Attorney of the city of Oklahoma, Robert Macy, is one of such attorneys. In a particular
case involving the murder of a woman who had been made to watch as her baby was killed, and
later got killed herself, the attorney categorically supports the concept of retribution. He said that
the killer ought not to be allowed to live in some prison with three meals a day, clean bed sheets,
cable TV and all the luxuries that the prisons department affords offenders. If this was to happen,
justice for the victims would not be served; such a killer needs to die (Burkhead, 2009).
The retribution argument, no doubt, seems to be extremely persuasive. Even so, it must
be understood that retribution is synonymous with revenge (Garland, 2010). A society that has
made great strides in civilization needs to respond to any situation with a measured response. A
‘life for a life’ or an ‘eye for an eye’ culture has no place in a civilized society. Bud Welch, a
resident of the city of Oklahoma seems to understand that the culture of retribution only serves to
exacerbate the problem. His daughter, Julie Welch, was killed in the city’s bombing in 1995. His
immediate reaction was to ask that the bombers be hanged for killing his daughter. Later,
however, he realized that his daughter had been killed in what seemed like a revenge attack. In
that case, he argued that killing of the bombers would also be a revenge mission that would
attract even more revenge missions. For the society to stop the vicious cycle of crime, thus, such
options as retribution must be avoided (Burkhead, 2009).
The third factor that has always laid the basis for arguments for and against death penalty
is innocence of those who get convicted. Although opponents have always argued that there is
always the possibility of innocent persons being convicted, this argument has always been met

4. with fierce opposition. Proponents contend that the US justice system has been putting
safeguards and enhanced opportunities of appeals since 1970s. That being done, they argue that
the chances of an innocent inmate being executed are minimized. Proponents also argue that
even if there is the possibility of an innocent person being imprisoned, the US judicial system
should not be asked to empty its prisons because of such an insignificant risks (Graland, 2010).
The issue of minimal risk should never arise. What needs to be understood is that once a
convict has been executed, such an act cannot be revoked. Death penalty, once disposed, cannot
be reversed. Life is sacred and as long as there is the chance of taking the life of an innocent
person through the penalty, then, other alternatives needs to be employed. It is worthwhile to
note that studies have shown that the US justice system is largely flawed, and that capital
sentence is unreliable. A study done by the Columbia University Law School found that two
thirds of the capital sentence related cases had serious flaws. Of all the cases that had been
retried, 70 percent of the defendants were not sentenced to death, while 7 percent of these were
acquitted (Garland, 2010).
Whether capital punishment deters crime and whether this form of punishment brings
balance in the society are two of the arguments that opponents and proponents use in support, or
condemnation of the practice. Innocence of prisoners who become victims of the punishment is
another prominent basis that those opposed or support the sentence use to air their views. Each
of the opposing sides raises serious arguments as to why death sentence should be made to stay
or be banned. Despite the nature of these arguments, what both sides agree is that the practice
involves taking away of what any one genius cannot create, and that is life. If death sentence
involves taking away what is sacred, then, it needs to be done away with and other more humane
and life preserving alternatives sought.

5. References
Carozza, P. (2003). 'My Friend is a Stranger': The Death Penalty and the Global Ius Commune of
Human Rights. Texas Law Review, Vol. 81, p. 1031.
Garland, D. (2010).Peculiar Institution: America's Death Penalty in an Age of Abolition. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Burkhead, M. (2009). A Life for a Life: The American Debate over the Death Penalty. Jefferson:
McFarland.