Reimagining Justice Without Execution: Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished?

Abstract

Surrounded by controversy, the debate regarding the preservation, or lack thereof, of the death penalty in the United States has sparked intense discourse. It has remained the subject of profound controversy since its beginning during colonial times. Stemming from issues surrounding the ethicality of the capital punishment and the irreversible essence of it, many Americans have begun reevaluating the cruel punishment at hand and favoring the abolishment of the death penalty. As human life becomes increasingly vital in this generation, this paper will argue against the preservation of the death penalty for a multitude of reasons. These compelling reasons include the ethical complications that pose from taking a life that can simply be avoided by the eradication of the irreversible nature of the punishment. Additionally, another compelling factor favoring the abolition of the penalty is the lack of deterrence the death penalty offers, as research has failed to correlate the establishment of the punishment with a decrease in crime rates and criminal activity. Lastly, the uncertainty and unpredictable nature of the death penalty along with the costs corresponded support more cost-effective, time-effective, and less permanent alternatives. Considering the seemingly endless appeals, mitigation evidence, and trials associated with the capital punishment, the economic turmoil the capital punishment ensues argues against the preservation of the death penalty. The utilization of legal cases such as Glossip v. Gross, DeLuna v. Lynaugh, and statistics from a variety of verified sources, will argue in support of the eradication of the death penalty in the United States.