Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Andrew Quiroz
Moore
1301-01
Death Penalty
The death penalty is a punishment practice used in the United States for someone who is
accused of a capital crime, typically, murder and is sentenced to the ultimate punishment of
execution. This practice has been a custom in America history and even used today. According
to CNN.com, “Since 1776 the amount of execution the US Supreme Court has executed over
1,481 people with the reinstatement of the death penalty”. This number looks staggering and
many people have different views and opinions dealing with the death penalty and whether it is
moral and the best way to protect and handle cases in today's day in age. James Acker, a
distinguished teaching professor at the University of Albany, states in his article “A Snake Oil
with a Bite” that to be eligible for the death penalty, “the defendant must be first convicted for a
capital crime” with proof for the defendant's guilt phase of the trial (Acker). More than half the
states in the United States allow capital punishment (Death Penalty) for criminals that have
committed capital crimes. With the introduction to LWOP, or life without parole, this gives the
argument for an alternative for the death penalty to serve justice for the victim's family members
and friends. The death penalty causes lots of debate and arguments whether someone should
receive and be sentenced to the death penalty. The controversy surrounding the death penalty
centers around the morality and whether it protects the defendant's humane rights with the
executions and also what other ways can justice be served for victims of capital crimes.
[Last Name] 2
Activist that oppose the death penalty want to improve the defendant's humane rights
because they are humans as well. Ingrid Nicolau a professor Spiru Haret University, states in
their article “Historical Evolution of the Death Penalty”, that the Universal Declaration on
Human Rights in 1948 states, “Every individual has the right to life, liberty, and the security of
his person” (Nicolau). She also suggests that the times the defendant's times are not protected are
when they are executed due to the ultimate punishment of the death penalty. Without the
protection of the defendant’s natural-born human rights, this gives the argument to death penalty
supporters to whether the death penalty fundamentally correct to use in today's day in age.
Opponents of the death penalty suggest alternative punishments for the criminal to help protect
their human rights such as the life without parole. To ensure the best way to handle and protect
the defendant’s human rights, activist that oppose the death penalty believe that the government
People in support of the death penalty believe that anything other than the death penalty
wouldn’t give the justice that is due for the victim and the victim’s friends and family. Edward
Fesar associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College states that to correctly punish
and sentence criminals of capital crimes anything less than death would fail to bring justice
(Fesar). Professor Fesar is stating that anything less than death for a criminal's actions, such as a
capital crime, would not bring justice to the victim or their friends and families. Finding ways to
serve justice for those victimized in the capital crime should be the priority in any case dealing
with the death penalty. The victims' families should have the benefit of the doubt that the
criminal should be properly punished for their actions and not receive any incentives or anything
less than the death penalty. To overlook the defendant's humane rights and first give the victims
[Last Name] 3
the rights to serve justice for victims for the criminal punishment is a must. Criminals should be
Opponents and supporters of the death penalty argue the benefits and problems of the
death penalty and LWOP. Opponents of the death penalty have adopted the idea of the LWOP as
an alternative for the death penalty. Carol S.Steiker a Professor of Law at the University of
Harvard, says in her article the introduction to “life without possibility of parole or LWOP”,
which started in the 1970s “directly promoted the phenomenon of mass incarceration” (Steiker
197). With a proper punishment of life without parole and protects the defendant’s humans'
rights and is moral to adopted in today's day in age. Some states have begun to abolition the
death penalty and have taken steps to adopt the LWOP concept. With more respect to the
defendant's morals and less violence being committed in states this is why opponents of the death
Hearing both arguments about the death penalty some changes or adjustments should be
made to find some middle ground between the opponents and supporters of the death penalty.
someone would have to view both sides of the argument to make a final decision on the death
penalty. If a person's family member or friend was killed by a criminal, they would want the
maximum punishment for their actions. On the other hand, that person is also a human being, no
matter any circumstances the defendant and his or her supporters would want them to be able to
live. LWOP gives the answer to that question and is also an effective alternative to help
eliminate the social dilemma in execution in today's day in age. The death penalty is a debatable
topic with lots of controversy surrounding it, people need to protect the morals and rights of the
criminal but also give justice to the victims of the crime committed on them.
[Last Name] 4
Work Cited
Nasif, Noelle, et al. “Racial Exclusion and Death Penalty Juries: Can Death Penalty Juries Ever
Be Representative?” Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy, vol. 27, no. 2, Spring 2018,
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=129603750&site=ehost-live.
Acker, James R. “Snake Oil with a Bite: The Lethal Veneer of Science and Texas’s Death
Penalty.” Albany Law Review, vol. 81, no. 3, July 2018, pp. 751–805. EBSCOhost,
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=130844372&site=ehost-live
. Steiker, Carol S., and Jordan M. Steiker. “The Death Penalty and Mass Incarceration:
Convergences and Divergences.” American Journal of Criminal Law, vol. 41, no. 2, Spring
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=97023433&site=ehost-live.
Human Right.” Contemporary Readings in Law & Social Justice, vol. 5, no. 2, June 2013, pp.
278–283. EBSCOhost,
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lgh&AN=93326113&site=ehost-live.
[Last Name] 5