Trivedi 1

Shivani Trivedi
Dr. Lee Carmouche
ENGL 1301, 8:30 a.m.

The Abolition of the Death Penalty in the United States

The death penalty has been a well-established, though highly controversial, practice in
the United States (U.S.) for almost 400 years. The first execution of a criminal in the American
colonies occurred in Virginia in 1622 (Marcus, 838). During most of the 20th century, the vast
majority of states in the country permitted execution of convicted criminals (Marcus, 838). The
practice dates back to early English common law, where virtually any person convicted of a
felony offense faced a mandatory death sentence (Marcus, 838), but the practice has always been
much more widespread in the U.S. than in the United Kingdom, which abandoned capital
punishment in 1973 (Marcus, 838). For much of US history, capital punishment was extended
beyond the crime of murder to include, among other offences, arson, burglary, armed robbery,
rape, kidnapping, and possession of certain firearms in connection with crimes of violence
(Marcus, 838). The history of capital punishment in the US is centered almost entirely on state
criminal justice systems, as opposed to the federal system. This is because virtually all major violent
crimes which would give rise to a sentence of death occur within the states and not within the federal
system (Marcus, 838). In a five-year period in the mid-1970s, the US Supreme Court for the first
time actively involved itself in determining the constitutionality of death penalty statutes. Prior to
that time, the justices were relatively silent on the basic questions (Marcus, 840). In 1972, however,
in Furman v Georgia, the Court held that the Georgia death penalty statute was unconstitutional
because it gave the jury complete discretion to determine upon conviction of murder whether death
or life imprisonment was appropriate (Marcus, 840). A majority of the Court found that the death

Trivedi 2
penalty there was applied in a 'freakish and wanton' manner because the jury's discretion was
completely unbridled. (Marcus, 840) The Court, however, had a very difficult time agreeing on why
that broad discretion rendered the statute unconstitutional. Indeed, while the decision itself is but one
paragraph, a per curiam opinion, there were nine separate opinions (five concurring and four
dissenting). With over 240 pages in print, the decision was, at least at that time, the longest ever
rendered in the history of the US Supreme Court. ( Marcus, 840) In fact, the U.S. Government

should abolish the death penalty, because it is a violation of human rights.

To begin, the death penalty should be abolished in the United States because no one
deserves to die by the judgment of another person or persons. Debate over capital punishment
has focused primarily on its moral and practical attributes as a governmental policy. The cruel
and unusual punishment clause of the eighth amendment is directly in point (Goldberg,
Dershowitz, 1774). Perhaps the strongest argument against capital punishment is the irreparable
consequence of an error in the process of justice (Zhu, 1071). The thought of executing an
innocent person by mistake may override any consideration in favor of such a punishment in
many people's mind (Zhu, 1071). The death penalty also deprives a person's life even if he or she
has repented the crimes, and therefore should be readily commuted to other forms of punishment
for such a person before execution (Zhu, 1071). For example, serious criminals who have
meritorious behavior such as assisting in investigations into major crimes should not be given the
death penalty, but according to the International Commission Against Death Penalty, there have
been over a thousand innocent lives lost to death row since the 1970s. Even if there is a
considerable amount of evidence to convict a person of murder, the execution of criminals is no
less barbaric than the murders they are convicted of and it will not restore the life of the victims
killed (Zhu, 1071).

Trivedi 3
On the other hand, the opposing arguments may say that the death penalty stay as is
because it provides the public a symbolic response to murder (Nice, 1040).
Wherever killings are comparatively common, people may perceive the death penalty as
necessary for the preservation of a social order that is in serious jeopardy (Nice, 1040).
Proportionally high rates of murder and non-negligent homicide and increasing rates for those
crimes are likely to increase support for capital punishment (Nice, 1040). The abolition of the
death penalty will embolden felons by giving them the assurance that whatever serious crimes
they commit, they will survive and with some luck go free later in their life (Zhu, 1071). Public
opinion shows that wealthier people are more supportive of the death penalty, because studies
have shown that the killers of wealthy people are especially likely to receive the death penalty
(Nice, 1040). The wealthier states would be more receptive to capital punishment as a way to
save the valuable lives of, in the eyes of some observers, the wealthier people.
However, the evidence for abolishing the death penalty outweigh the evidence for
keeping it in the United States. Firstly, the evidence on whether the death penalty actually deters
crime is inconsistent, therefore the opposing argument cannot say for sure that felons will keep
on committing crimes and getting away with it (Zhu, 1071). Secondly, cross-national research
indicates that wealthier nations have generally abolished capital punishment, possibly because
those nations place a higher value on human life, including the lives of offenders (Nice, 1039).
People sentenced to death in countries that have some form of capital punishment tend to be
relatively poor, a finding that could mean that the lives of poor offenders are regarded as less
valuable, or it may be the likelihood that poor offenders lack the resources to present a strong
defense (Nice, 1039). Economic hardship may enhance the appeal of severe penalties as one way
to preserve a social order that is under strain (Nice, 1039). Therefore, from this point of view,

Trivedi 4
wealthier states would actually be less supportive of the death penalty because it creates a gap
between the value of the rich and poor.
In conclusion, the U.S. Government should abolish the death penalty because it is a
violation of human rights. As stated earlier, the death penalty is immoral and it directly clashes
with the 8th amendment of the Constitution as cruel and unusual punishment. Human beings
have considered themselves a superior race, above all animals and creatures; in light of the
controversy over abolishing the death penalty, some human beings have put themselves above
other human beings as well. People are often heard saying, As human beings, we make
mistakes. Does this statement support the fact that innocent lives have been lost on Death Row,
because human beings have to ability to make mistakes? How much evidence is too much
evidence to convict someone and give them the death penalty? What happens if an innocent life
is lost? Did their life have some sort of value based on their socioeconomic status? These
questions cannot be answered, because there is no limit to what human beings can do as a
superior race. Gandhi once said, An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind. If the
U.S. Government keeps taking the lives of people who have committed murder, future
generations will live in a society where war and fighting will be inevitable. Killing someone that
has committed murder will not bring the victim back, and it is sad to see how the United States
uses the death penalty as a way to see that justice is served.

Trivedi 5
Works Cited
Goldberg, Arthur J., and Alan M. Dershowitz. "Harvard Law Review." Declaring the Death
Penalty Unconstitutional 83 (1970): 1773-819. 17 Nov. 2014.
Marcus, Paul. "Melbourne University Law Review." Capital Punishment in the United States,
and Beyond 31 (2007): 838-72. 17 Nov. 2014.
Mooney, Christopher Z., and Mei-Hsien Lee. "Diffusion of Ideas and Things." Morality Policy
Reinvention: State Death Penalties 26 (1999): 80-92. 17 Nov. 2014.
Nice, David C. "The Western Political Quarterly." The States and the Death Penalty 45 (1992):
1037-048. 17 Nov. 2014
Radelet, Michael L., and Marian J. Borg. "Annual Review of Sociology." The Changing Nature
of Death Penalty Debates 26 (2000): 43-61. 17 Nov. 2014.
Short, Christy A. "Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies." The Abolition of the Death Penalty:
Does "Abolition" Really Mean What You Think It Means? 6 (1999): 721-56. 17 Nov.
2014.
Zhu, Xiaohua. "Economic and Political Weekly." Death Penalty: Another View 19 (1071): 8092. 17 Nov. 2014.

Trivedi 6