is capital punishment ethical persuasive essay

Share full article

Supported by

student opinion

Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished?

In its last six months, the United States government has put 13 prisoners to death. Do you think capital punishment should end?

is capital punishment ethical persuasive essay

By Nicole Daniels

Students in U.S. high schools can get free digital access to The New York Times until Sept. 1, 2021.

In July, the United States carried out its first federal execution in 17 years. Since then, the Trump administration has executed 13 inmates, more than three times as many as the federal government had in the previous six decades.

The death penalty has been abolished in 22 states and 106 countries, yet it is still legal at the federal level in the United States. Does your state or country allow the death penalty?

Do you believe governments should be allowed to execute people who have been convicted of crimes? Is it ever justified, such as for the most heinous crimes? Or are you universally opposed to capital punishment?

In “ ‘Expedited Spree of Executions’ Faced Little Supreme Court Scrutiny ,” Adam Liptak writes about the recent federal executions:

In 2015, a few months before he died, Justice Antonin Scalia said he w o uld not be surprised if the Supreme Court did away with the death penalty. These days, after President Trump’s appointment of three justices, liberal members of the court have lost all hope of abolishing capital punishment. In the face of an extraordinary run of federal executions over the past six months, they have been left to wonder whether the court is prepared to play any role in capital cases beyond hastening executions. Until July, there had been no federal executions in 17 years . Since then, the Trump administration has executed 13 inmates, more than three times as many as the federal government had put to death in the previous six decades.

The article goes on to explain that Justice Stephen G. Breyer issued a dissent on Friday as the Supreme Court cleared the way for the last execution of the Trump era, complaining that it had not sufficiently resolved legal questions that inmates had asked. The article continues:

If Justice Breyer sounded rueful, it was because he had just a few years ago held out hope that the court would reconsider the constitutionality of capital punishment. He had set out his arguments in a major dissent in 2015 , one that must have been on Justice Scalia’s mind when he made his comments a few months later. Justice Breyer wrote in that 46-page dissent that he considered it “highly likely that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment,” which bars cruel and unusual punishments. He said that death row exonerations were frequent, that death sentences were imposed arbitrarily and that the capital justice system was marred by racial discrimination. Justice Breyer added that there was little reason to think that the death penalty deterred crime and that long delays between sentences and executions might themselves violate the Eighth Amendment. Most of the country did not use the death penalty, he said, and the United States was an international outlier in embracing it. Justice Ginsburg, who died in September, had joined the dissent. The two other liberals — Justices Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — were undoubtedly sympathetic. And Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who held the decisive vote in many closely divided cases until his retirement in 2018, had written the majority opinions in several 5-to-4 decisions that imposed limits on the death penalty, including ones barring the execution of juvenile offenders and people convicted of crimes other than murder .

In the July Opinion essay “ The Death Penalty Can Ensure ‘Justice Is Being Done,’ ” Jeffrey A. Rosen, then acting deputy attorney general, makes a legal case for capital punishment:

The death penalty is a difficult issue for many Americans on moral, religious and policy grounds. But as a legal issue, it is straightforward. The United States Constitution expressly contemplates “capital” crimes, and Congress has authorized the death penalty for serious federal offenses since President George Washington signed the Crimes Act of 1790. The American people have repeatedly ratified that decision, including through the Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994 signed by President Bill Clinton, the federal execution of Timothy McVeigh under President George W. Bush and the decision by President Barack Obama’s Justice Department to seek the death penalty against the Boston Marathon bomber and Dylann Roof.

Students, read the entire article , then tell us:

Do you support the use of capital punishment? Or do you think it should be abolished? Why?

Do you think the death penalty serves a necessary purpose, like deterring crime, providing relief for victims’ families or imparting justice? Or is capital punishment “cruel and unusual” and therefore prohibited by the Constitution? Is it morally wrong?

Are there alternatives to the death penalty that you think would be more appropriate? For example, is life in prison without the possibility of parole a sufficient sentence? Or is that still too harsh? What about restorative justice , an approach that “considers harm done and strives for agreement from all concerned — the victims, the offender and the community — on making amends”? What other ideas do you have?

Vast racial disparities in the administration of the death penalty have been found. For example, Black people are overrepresented on death row, and a recent study found that “defendants convicted of killing white victims were executed at a rate 17 times greater than those convicted of killing Black victims.” Does this information change or reinforce your opinion of capital punishment? How so?

The Federal Death Penalty Act prohibits the government from executing an inmate who is mentally disabled; however, in the recent executions of Corey Johnson , Alfred Bourgeois and Lisa Montgomery , their defense teams, families and others argued that they had intellectual disabilities. What role do you think disability or trauma history should play in how someone is punished, or rehabilitated, after committing a crime?

How concerned should we be about wrongfully convicted people being executed? The Innocence Project has proved the innocence of 18 people on death row who were exonerated by DNA testing. Do you have worries about the fair application of the death penalty, or about the possibility of the criminal justice system executing an innocent person?

About Student Opinion

• Find all of our Student Opinion questions in this column . • Have an idea for a Student Opinion question? Tell us about it . • Learn more about how to use our free daily writing prompts for remote learning .

Students 13 and older in the United States and the United Kingdom, and 16 and older elsewhere, are invited to comment. All comments are moderated by the Learning Network staff, but please keep in mind that once your comment is accepted, it will be made public.

Nicole Daniels joined The Learning Network as a staff editor in 2019 after working in museum education, curriculum writing and bilingual education. More about Nicole Daniels

Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty

Click the buttons below to view arguments and testimony on each topic.

The death penalty deters future murders.

Society has always used punishment to discourage would-be criminals from unlawful action. Since society has the highest interest in preventing murder, it should use the strongest punishment available to deter murder, and that is the death penalty. If murderers are sentenced to death and executed, potential murderers will think twice before killing for fear of losing their own life.

For years, criminologists analyzed murder rates to see if they fluctuated with the likelihood of convicted murderers being executed, but the results were inconclusive. Then in 1973 Isaac Ehrlich employed a new kind of analysis which produced results showing that for every inmate who was executed, 7 lives were spared because others were deterred from committing murder. Similar results have been produced by disciples of Ehrlich in follow-up studies.

Moreover, even if some studies regarding deterrence are inconclusive, that is only because the death penalty is rarely used and takes years before an execution is actually carried out. Punishments which are swift and sure are the best deterrent. The fact that some states or countries which do not use the death penalty have lower murder rates than jurisdictions which do is not evidence of the failure of deterrence. States with high murder rates would have even higher rates if they did not use the death penalty.

Ernest van den Haag, a Professor of Jurisprudence at Fordham University who has studied the question of deterrence closely, wrote: “Even though statistical demonstrations are not conclusive, and perhaps cannot be, capital punishment is likely to deter more than other punishments because people fear death more than anything else. They fear most death deliberately inflicted by law and scheduled by the courts. Whatever people fear most is likely to deter most. Hence, the threat of the death penalty may deter some murderers who otherwise might not have been deterred. And surely the death penalty is the only penalty that could deter prisoners already serving a life sentence and tempted to kill a guard, or offenders about to be arrested and facing a life sentence. Perhaps they will not be deterred. But they would certainly not be deterred by anything else. We owe all the protection we can give to law enforcers exposed to special risks.”

Finally, the death penalty certainly “deters” the murderer who is executed. Strictly speaking, this is a form of incapacitation, similar to the way a robber put in prison is prevented from robbing on the streets. Vicious murderers must be killed to prevent them from murdering again, either in prison, or in society if they should get out. Both as a deterrent and as a form of permanent incapacitation, the death penalty helps to prevent future crime.

Those who believe that deterrence justifies the execution of certain offenders bear the burden of proving that the death penalty is a deterrent. The overwhelming conclusion from years of deterrence studies is that the death penalty is, at best, no more of a deterrent than a sentence of life in prison. The Ehrlich studies have been widely discredited. In fact, some criminologists, such as William Bowers of Northeastern University, maintain that the death penalty has the opposite effect: that is, society is brutalized by the use of the death penalty, and this increases the likelihood of more murder. Even most supporters of the death penalty now place little or no weight on deterrence as a serious justification for its continued use.

States in the United States that do not employ the death penalty generally have lower murder rates than states that do. The same is true when the U.S. is compared to countries similar to it. The U.S., with the death penalty, has a higher murder rate than the countries of Europe or Canada, which do not use the death penalty.

The death penalty is not a deterrent because most people who commit murders either do not expect to be caught or do not carefully weigh the differences between a possible execution and life in prison before they act. Frequently, murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively. As someone who presided over many of Texas’s executions, former Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox has remarked, “It is my own experience that those executed in Texas were not deterred by the existence of the death penalty law. I think in most cases you’ll find that the murder was committed under severe drug and alcohol abuse.”

There is no conclusive proof that the death penalty acts as a better deterrent than the threat of life imprisonment. A 2012 report released by the prestigious National Research Council of the National Academies and based on a review of more than three decades of research, concluded that studies claiming a deterrent effect on murder rates from the death penalty are fundamentally flawed. A survey of the former and present presidents of the country’s top academic criminological societies found that 84% of these experts rejected the notion that research had demonstrated any deterrent effect from the death penalty .

Once in prison, those serving life sentences often settle into a routine and are less of a threat to commit violence than other prisoners. Moreover, most states now have a sentence of life without parole. Prisoners who are given this sentence will never be released. Thus, the safety of society can be assured without using the death penalty.

Ernest van den Haag Professor of Jurisprudence and Public Policy, Fordham University. Excerpts from ” The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense,” (Harvard Law Review Association, 1986)

“Execution of those who have committed heinous murders may deter only one murder per year. If it does, it seems quite warranted. It is also the only fitting retribution for murder I can think of.”

“Most abolitionists acknowledge that they would continue to favor abolition even if the death penalty were shown to deter more murders than alternatives could deter. Abolitionists appear to value the life of a convicted murderer or, at least, his non-execution, more highly than they value the lives of the innocent victims who might be spared by deterring prospective murderers.

Deterrence is not altogether decisive for me either. I would favor retention of the death penalty as retribution even if it were shown that the threat of execution could not deter prospective murderers not already deterred by the threat of imprisonment. Still, I believe the death penalty, because of its finality, is more feared than imprisonment, and deters some prospective murderers not deterred by the thought of imprisonment. Sparing the lives of even a few prospective victims by deterring their murderers is more important than preserving the lives of convicted murderers because of the possibility, or even the probability, that executing them would not deter others. Whereas the life of the victims who might be saved are valuable, that of the murderer has only negative value, because of his crime. Surely the criminal law is meant to protect the lives of potential victims in preference to those of actual murderers.”

“We threaten punishments in order to deter crime. We impose them not only to make the threats credible but also as retribution (justice) for the crimes that were not deterred. Threats and punishments are necessary to deter and deterrence is a sufficient practical justification for them. Retribution is an independent moral justification. Although penalties can be unwise, repulsive, or inappropriate, and those punished can be pitiable, in a sense the infliction of legal punishment on a guilty person cannot be unjust. By committing the crime, the criminal volunteered to assume the risk of receiving a legal punishment that he could have avoided by not committing the crime. The punishment he suffers is the punishment he voluntarily risked suffering and, therefore, it is no more unjust to him than any other event for which one knowingly volunteers to assume the risk. Thus, the death penalty cannot be unjust to the guilty criminal.”

Full text can be found at PBS.org .

“Persons who commit murder and other crimes of personal violence either may or may not premeditate their crimes.

When crime is planned, the criminal ordinarily concentrates on escaping detection, arrest, and conviction. The threat of even the severest punishment will not discourage those who expect to escape detection and arrest. It is impossible to imagine how the threat of any punishment could prevent a crime that is not premeditated….

Most capital crimes are committed in the heat of the moment. Most capital crimes are committed during moments of great emotional stress or under the influence of drugs or alcohol, when logical thinking has been suspended. In such cases, violence is inflicted by persons heedless of the consequences to themselves as well as to others….

If, however, severe punishment can deter crime, then long-term imprisonment is severe enough to deter any rational person from committing a violent crime.

The vast preponderance of the evidence shows that the death penalty is no more effective than imprisonment in deterring murder and that it may even be an incitement to criminal violence. Death-penalty states as a group do not have lower rates of criminal homicide than non-death-penalty states….

On-duty police officers do not suffer a higher rate of criminal assault and homicide in abolitionist states than they do in death-penalty states. Between l973 and l984, for example, lethal assaults against police were not significantly more, or less, frequent in abolitionist states than in death-penalty states. There is ‘no support for the view that the death penalty provides a more effective deterrent to police homicides than alternative sanctions. Not for a single year was evidence found that police are safer in jurisdictions that provide for capital punishment.’ (Bailey and Peterson, Criminology (1987))

Prisoners and prison personnel do not suffer a higher rate of criminal assault and homicide from life-term prisoners in abolition states than they do in death-penalty states. Between 1992 and 1995, 176 inmates were murdered by other prisoners; the vast majority (84%) were killed in death penalty jurisdictions. During the same period about 2% of all assaults on prison staff were committed by inmates in abolition jurisdictions. Evidently, the threat of the death penalty ‘does not even exert an incremental deterrent effect over the threat of a lesser punishment in the abolitionist states.’ (Wolfson, in Bedau, ed., The Death Penalty in America, 3rd ed. (1982))

Actual experience thus establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the death penalty does not deter murder. No comparable body of evidence contradicts that conclusion.”

Click here for the full text from the ACLU website.

Retribution

A just society requires the taking of a life for a life.

When someone takes a life, the balance of justice is disturbed. Unless that balance is restored, society succumbs to a rule of violence. Only the taking of the murderer’s life restores the balance and allows society to show convincingly that murder is an intolerable crime which will be punished in kind.

Retribution has its basis in religious values, which have historically maintained that it is proper to take an “eye for an eye” and a life for a life.

Although the victim and the victim’s family cannot be restored to the status which preceded the murder, at least an execution brings closure to the murderer’s crime (and closure to the ordeal for the victim’s family) and ensures that the murderer will create no more victims.

For the most cruel and heinous crimes, the ones for which the death penalty is applied, offenders deserve the worst punishment under our system of law, and that is the death penalty. Any lesser punishment would undermine the value society places on protecting lives.

Robert Macy, District Attorney of Oklahoma City, described his concept of the need for retribution in one case: “In 1991, a young mother was rendered helpless and made to watch as her baby was executed. The mother was then mutilated and killed. The killer should not lie in some prison with three meals a day, clean sheets, cable TV, family visits and endless appeals. For justice to prevail, some killers just need to die.”

Retribution is another word for revenge. Although our first instinct may be to inflict immediate pain on someone who wrongs us, the standards of a mature society demand a more measured response.

The emotional impulse for revenge is not a sufficient justification for invoking a system of capital punishment, with all its accompanying problems and risks. Our laws and criminal justice system should lead us to higher principles that demonstrate a complete respect for life, even the life of a murderer. Encouraging our basest motives of revenge, which ends in another killing, extends the chain of violence. Allowing executions sanctions killing as a form of ‘pay-back.’

Many victims’ families denounce the use of the death penalty. Using an execution to try to right the wrong of their loss is an affront to them and only causes more pain. For example, Bud Welch’s daughter, Julie, was killed in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Although his first reaction was to wish that those who committed this terrible crime be killed, he ultimately realized that such killing “is simply vengeance; and it was vengeance that killed Julie…. Vengeance is a strong and natural emotion. But it has no place in our justice system.”

The notion of an eye for an eye, or a life for a life, is a simplistic one which our society has never endorsed. We do not allow torturing the torturer, or raping the rapist. Taking the life of a murderer is a similarly disproportionate punishment, especially in light of the fact that the U.S. executes only a small percentage of those convicted of murder, and these defendants are typically not the worst offenders but merely the ones with the fewest resources to defend themselves.

Louis P. Pojman Author and Professor of Philosophy, U.S. Military Academy. Excerpt from “The Death Penalty: For and Against,” (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1998)

“[Opponents of the capital punishment often put forth the following argument:] Perhaps the murderer deserves to die, but what authority does the state have to execute him or her? Both the Old and New Testament says, “’Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord” (Prov. 25:21 and Romans 12:19). You need special authority to justify taking the life of a human being.

The objector fails to note that the New Testament passage continues with a support of the right of the state to execute criminals in the name of God: “Let every person be subjected to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment…. If you do wrong, be afraid, for [the authority] does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13: 1-4). So, according to the Bible, the authority to punish, which presumably includes the death penalty, comes from God.

But we need not appeal to a religious justification for capital punishment. We can site the state’s role in dispensing justice. Just as the state has the authority (and duty) to act justly in allocating scarce resources, in meeting minimal needs of its (deserving) citizens, in defending its citizens from violence and crime, and in not waging unjust wars; so too does it have the authority, flowing from its mission to promote justice and the good of its people, to punish the criminal. If the criminal, as one who has forfeited a right to life, deserves to be executed, especially if it will likely deter would-be murderers, the state has a duty to execute those convicted of first-degree murder.”

National Council of Synagogues and the Bishops’ Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops Excerpts from “To End the Death Penalty: A Report of the National Jewish/Catholic Consultation” (December, 1999)

“Some would argue that the death penalty is needed as a means of retributive justice, to balance out the crime with the punishment. This reflects a natural concern of society, and especially of victims and their families. Yet we believe that we are called to seek a higher road even while punishing the guilty, for example through long and in some cases life-long incarceration, so that the healing of all can ultimately take place.

Some would argue that the death penalty will teach society at large the seriousness of crime. Yet we say that teaching people to respond to violence with violence will, again, only breed more violence.

The strongest argument of all [in favor of the death penalty] is the deep pain and grief of the families of victims, and their quite natural desire to see punishment meted out to those who have plunged them into such agony. Yet it is the clear teaching of our traditions that this pain and suffering cannot be healed simply through the retribution of capital punishment or by vengeance. It is a difficult and long process of healing which comes about through personal growth and God’s grace. We agree that much more must be done by the religious community and by society at large to solace and care for the grieving families of the victims of violent crime.

Recent statements of the Reform and Conservative movements in Judaism, and of the U.S. Catholic Conference sum up well the increasingly strong convictions shared by Jews and Catholics…:

‘Respect for all human life and opposition to the violence in our society are at the root of our long-standing opposition (as bishops) to the death penalty. We see the death penalty as perpetuating a cycle of violence and promoting a sense of vengeance in our culture. As we said in Confronting the Culture of Violence: ‘We cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing.’ We oppose capital punishment not just for what it does to those guilty of horrible crimes, but for what it does to all of us as a society. Increasing reliance on the death penalty diminishes all of us and is a sign of growing disrespect for human life. We cannot overcome crime by simply executing criminals, nor can we restore the lives of the innocent by ending the lives of those convicted of their murders. The death penalty offers the tragic illusion that we can defend life by taking life.’1

We affirm that we came to these conclusions because of our shared understanding of the sanctity of human life. We have committed ourselves to work together, and each within our own communities, toward ending the death penalty.” Endnote 1. Statement of the Administrative Committee of the United States Catholic Conference, March 24, 1999.

The risk of executing the innocent precludes the use of the death penalty.

The death penalty alone imposes an irrevocable sentence. Once an inmate is executed, nothing can be done to make amends if a mistake has been made. There is considerable evidence that many mistakes have been made in sentencing people to death. Since 1973, over 180 people have been released from death row after evidence of their innocence emerged. During the same period of time, over 1,500 people have been executed. Thus, for every 8.3 people executed, we have found one person on death row who never should have been convicted. These statistics represent an intolerable risk of executing the innocent. If an automobile manufacturer operated with similar failure rates, it would be run out of business.

Our capital punishment system is unreliable. A study by Columbia University Law School found that two thirds of all capital trials contained serious errors. When the cases were retried, over 80% of the defendants were not sentenced to death and 7% were completely acquitted.

Many of the releases of innocent defendants from death row came about as a result of factors outside of the justice system. Recently, journalism students in Illinois were assigned to investigate the case of a man who was scheduled to be executed, after the system of appeals had rejected his legal claims. The students discovered that one witness had lied at the original trial, and they were able to find another man, who confessed to the crime on videotape and was later convicted of the murder. The innocent man who was released was very fortunate, but he was spared because of the informal efforts of concerned citizens, not because of the justice system.

In other cases, DNA testing has exonerated death row inmates. Here, too, the justice system had concluded that these defendants were guilty and deserving of the death penalty. DNA testing became available only in the early 1990s, due to advancements in science. If this testing had not been discovered until ten years later, many of these inmates would have been executed. And if DNA testing had been applied to earlier cases where inmates were executed in the 1970s and 80s, the odds are high that it would have proven that some of them were innocent as well.

Society takes many risks in which innocent lives can be lost. We build bridges, knowing that statistically some workers will be killed during construction; we take great precautions to reduce the number of unintended fatalities. But wrongful executions are a preventable risk. By substituting a sentence of life without parole, we meet society’s needs of punishment and protection without running the risk of an erroneous and irrevocable punishment.

There is no proof that any innocent person has actually been executed since increased safeguards and appeals were added to our death penalty system in the 1970s. Even if such executions have occurred, they are very rare. Imprisoning innocent people is also wrong, but we cannot empty the prisons because of that minimal risk. If improvements are needed in the system of representation, or in the use of scientific evidence such as DNA testing, then those reforms should be instituted. However, the need for reform is not a reason to abolish the death penalty.

Besides, many of the claims of innocence by those who have been released from death row are actually based on legal technicalities. Just because someone’s conviction is overturned years later and the prosecutor decides not to retry him, does not mean he is actually innocent.

If it can be shown that someone is innocent, surely a governor would grant clemency and spare the person. Hypothetical claims of innocence are usually just delaying tactics to put off the execution as long as possible. Given our thorough system of appeals through numerous state and federal courts, the execution of an innocent individual today is almost impossible. Even the theoretical execution of an innocent person can be justified because the death penalty saves lives by deterring other killings.

Gerald Kogan, Former Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Excerpts from a speech given in Orlando, Florida, October 23, 1999 “[T]here is no question in my mind, and I can tell you this having seen the dynamics of our criminal justice system over the many years that I have been associated with it, [as] prosecutor, defense attorney, trial judge and Supreme Court Justice, that convinces me that we certainly have, in the past, executed those people who either didn’t fit the criteria for execution in the State of Florida or who, in fact, were, factually, not guilty of the crime for which they have been executed.

“And you can make these statements when you understand the dynamics of the criminal justice system, when you understand how the State makes deals with more culpable defendants in a capital case, offers them light sentences in exchange for their testimony against another participant or, in some cases, in fact, gives them immunity from prosecution so that they can secure their testimony; the use of jailhouse confessions, like people who say, ‘I was in the cell with so-and-so and they confessed to me,’ or using those particular confessions, the validity of which there has been great doubt. And yet, you see the uneven application of the death penalty where, in many instances, those that are the most culpable escape death and those that are the least culpable are victims of the death penalty. These things begin to weigh very heavily upon you. And under our system, this is the system we have. And that is, we are human beings administering an imperfect system.”

“And how about those people who are still sitting on death row today, who may be factually innocent but cannot prove their particular case very simply because there is no DNA evidence in their case that can be used to exonerate them? Of course, in most cases, you’re not going to have that kind of DNA evidence, so there is no way and there is no hope for them to be saved from what may be one of the biggest mistakes that our society can make.”

The entire speech by Justice Kogan is available here.

Paul G. Cassell Associate Professor of Law, University of Utah, College of Law, and former law clerk to Chief Justice Warren E. Burger. Statement before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights Concerning Claims of Innocence in Capital Cases (July 23, 1993)

“Given the fallibility of human judgments, the possibility exists that the use of capital punishment may result in the execution of an innocent person. The Senate Judiciary Committee has previously found this risk to be ‘minimal,’ a view shared by numerous scholars. As Justice Powell has noted commenting on the numerous state capital cases that have come before the Supreme Court, the ‘unprecedented safeguards’ already inherent in capital sentencing statutes ‘ensure a degree of care in the imposition of the sentence of death that can only be described as unique.’”

“Our present system of capital punishment limits the ultimate penalty to certain specifically-defined crimes and even then, permit the penalty of death only when the jury finds that the aggravating circumstances in the case outweigh all mitigating circumstances. The system further provides judicial review of capital cases. Finally, before capital sentences are carried out, the governor or other executive official will review the sentence to insure that it is a just one, a determination that undoubtedly considers the evidence of the condemned defendant’s guilt. Once all of those decisionmakers have agreed that a death sentence is appropriate, innocent lives would be lost from failure to impose the sentence.”

“Capital sentences, when carried out, save innocent lives by permanently incapacitating murderers. Some persons who commit capital homicide will slay other innocent persons if given the opportunity to do so. The death penalty is the most effective means of preventing such killers from repeating their crimes. The next most serious penalty, life imprisonment without possibility of parole, prevents murderers from committing some crimes but does not prevent them from murdering in prison.”

“The mistaken release of guilty murderers should be of far greater concern than the speculative and heretofore nonexistent risk of the mistaken execution of an innocent person.”

Full text can be found here.

Arbitrariness & Discrimination

The death penalty is applied unfairly and should not be used.

In practice, the death penalty does not single out the worst offenders. Rather, it selects an arbitrary group based on such irrational factors as the quality of the defense counsel, the county in which the crime was committed, or the race of the defendant or victim.

Almost all defendants facing the death penalty cannot afford their own attorney. Hence, they are dependent on the quality of the lawyers assigned by the state, many of whom lack experience in capital cases or are so underpaid that they fail to investigate the case properly. A poorly represented defendant is much more likely to be convicted and given a death sentence.

With respect to race, studies have repeatedly shown that a death sentence is far more likely where a white person is murdered than where a Black person is murdered. The death penalty is racially divisive because it appears to count white lives as more valuable than Black lives. Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, 296 Black defendants have been executed for the murder of a white victim, while only 31 white defendants have been executed for the murder of a Black victim. Such racial disparities have existed over the history of the death penalty and appear to be largely intractable.

It is arbitrary when someone in one county or state receives the death penalty, but someone who commits a comparable crime in another county or state is given a life sentence. Prosecutors have enormous discretion about when to seek the death penalty and when to settle for a plea bargain. Often those who can only afford a minimal defense are selected for the death penalty. Until race and other arbitrary factors, like economics and geography, can be eliminated as a determinant of who lives and who dies, the death penalty must not be used.

Discretion has always been an essential part of our system of justice. No one expects the prosecutor to pursue every possible offense or punishment, nor do we expect the same sentence to be imposed just because two crimes appear similar. Each crime is unique, both because the circumstances of each victim are different and because each defendant is different. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a mandatory death penalty which applied to everyone convicted of first degree murder would be unconstitutional. Hence, we must give prosecutors and juries some discretion.

In fact, more white people are executed in this country than black people. And even if blacks are disproportionately represented on death row, proportionately blacks commit more murders than whites. Moreover, the Supreme Court has rejected the use of statistical studies which claim racial bias as the sole reason for overturning a death sentence.

Even if the death penalty punishes some while sparing others, it does not follow that everyone should be spared. The guilty should still be punished appropriately, even if some do escape proper punishment unfairly. The death penalty should apply to killers of black people as well as to killers of whites. High paid, skillful lawyers should not be able to get some defendants off on technicalities. The existence of some systemic problems is no reason to abandon the whole death penalty system.

Reverend Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. President and Chief Executive Officer, Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, Inc. Excerpt from “Legal Lynching: Racism, Injustice & the Death Penalty,” (Marlowe & Company, 1996)

“Who receives the death penalty has less to do with the violence of the crime than with the color of the criminal’s skin, or more often, the color of the victim’s skin. Murder — always tragic — seems to be a more heinous and despicable crime in some states than in others. Women who kill and who are killed are judged by different standards than are men who are murderers and victims.

The death penalty is essentially an arbitrary punishment. There are no objective rules or guidelines for when a prosecutor should seek the death penalty, when a jury should recommend it, and when a judge should give it. This lack of objective, measurable standards ensures that the application of the death penalty will be discriminatory against racial, gender, and ethnic groups.

The majority of Americans who support the death penalty believe, or wish to believe, that legitimate factors such as the violence and cruelty with which the crime was committed, a defendant’s culpability or history of violence, and the number of victims involved determine who is sentenced to life in prison and who receives the ultimate punishment. The numbers, however, tell a different story. They confirm the terrible truth that bias and discrimination warp our nation’s judicial system at the very time it matters most — in matters of life and death. The factors that determine who will live and who will die — race, sex, and geography — are the very same ones that blind justice was meant to ignore. This prejudicial distribution should be a moral outrage to every American.”

Justice Lewis Powell United States Supreme Court Justice excerpts from McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987) (footnotes and citations omitted)

(Mr. McCleskey, a black man, was convicted and sentenced to death in 1978 for killing a white police officer while robbing a store. Mr. McCleskey appealed his conviction and death sentence, claiming racial discrimination in the application of Georgia’s death penalty. He presented statistical analysis showing a pattern of sentencing disparities based primarily on the race of the victim. The analysis indicated that black defendants who killed white victims had the greatest likelihood of receiving the death penalty. Writing the majority opinion for the Supreme Court, Justice Powell held that statistical studies on race by themselves were an insufficient basis for overturning the death penalty.)

“[T]he claim that [t]his sentence rests on the irrelevant factor of race easily could be extended to apply to claims based on unexplained discrepancies that correlate to membership in other minority groups, and even to gender. Similarly, since [this] claim relates to the race of his victim, other claims could apply with equally logical force to statistical disparities that correlate with the race or sex of other actors in the criminal justice system, such as defense attorneys or judges. Also, there is no logical reason that such a claim need be limited to racial or sexual bias. If arbitrary and capricious punishment is the touchstone under the Eighth Amendment, such a claim could — at least in theory — be based upon any arbitrary variable, such as the defendant’s facial characteristics, or the physical attractiveness of the defendant or the victim, that some statistical study indicates may be influential in jury decision making. As these examples illustrate, there is no limiting principle to the type of challenge brought by McCleskey. The Constitution does not require that a State eliminate any demonstrable disparity that correlates with a potentially irrelevant factor in order to operate a criminal justice system that includes capital punishment. As we have stated specifically in the context of capital punishment, the Constitution does not ‘plac[e] totally unrealistic conditions on its use.’ (Gregg v. Georgia)”

The entire decision can be found here.

Capital Punishment: Our Duty or Our Doom?
Markkula Center for Applied Ethics
Focus Areas
More Focus Areas

Capital Punishment:Our Duty or Our Doom?

But human rights advocates and civil libertarians continue to decry the immorality of state-sanctioned killing in the U.S. Is capital punishment moral?

About 2000 men, women, and teenagers currently wait on America's "death row." Their time grows shorter as federal and state courts increasingly ratify death penalty laws, allowing executions to proceed at an accelerated rate. It's unlikely that any of these executions will make the front page, having become more or less a matter of routine in the last decade. Indeed, recent public opinion polls show a wide margin of support for the death penalty. But human rights advocates and civil libertarians continue to decry the immorality of state-sanctioned killing in the U.S., the only western industrialized country that continues to use the death penalty. Is capital punishment moral?

Capital punishment is often defended on the grounds that society has a moral obligation to protect the safety and welfare of its citizens. Murderers threaten this safety and welfare. Only by putting murderers to death can society ensure that convicted killers do not kill again.

Second, those favoring capital punishment contend that society should support those practices that will bring about the greatest balance of good over evil, and capital punishment is one such practice. Capital punishment benefits society because it may deter violent crime. While it is difficult to produce direct evidence to support this claim since, by definition, those who are deterred by the death penalty do not commit murders, common sense tells us that if people know that they will die if they perform a certain act, they will be unwilling to perform that act.

If the threat of death has, in fact, stayed the hand of many a would be murderer, and we abolish the death penalty, we will sacrifice the lives of many innocent victims whose murders could have been deterred. But if, in fact, the death penalty does not deter, and we continue to impose it, we have only sacrificed the lives of convicted murderers. Surely it's better for society to take a gamble that the death penalty deters in order to protect the lives of innocent people than to take a gamble that it doesn't deter and thereby protect the lives of murderers, while risking the lives of innocents. If grave risks are to be run, it's better that they be run by the guilty, not the innocent.

Finally, defenders of capital punishment argue that justice demands that those convicted of heinous crimes of murder be sentenced to death. Justice is essentially a matter of ensuring that everyone is treated equally. It is unjust when a criminal deliberately and wrongly inflicts greater losses on others than he or she has to bear. If the losses society imposes on criminals are less than those the criminals imposed on their innocent victims, society would be favoring criminals, allowing them to get away with bearing fewer costs than their victims had to bear. Justice requires that society impose on criminals losses equal to those they imposed on innocent persons. By inflicting death on those who deliberately inflict death on others, the death penalty ensures justice for all.

This requirement that justice be served is not weakened by charges that only the black and the poor receive the death penalty. Any unfair application of the death penalty is the basis for extending its application, not abolishing it. If an employer discriminates in hiring workers, do we demand that jobs be taken from the deserving who were hired or that jobs be abolished altogether? Likewise, if our criminal justice system discriminates in applying the death penalty so that some do not get their deserved punishment, it's no reason to give Iesser punishments to murderers who deserved the death penalty and got it. Some justice, however unequal, is better than no justice, however equal. To ensure justice and equality, we must work to improve our system so that everyone who deserves the death penalty gets it.

The case against capital punishment is often made on the basis that society has a moral obligation to protect human life, not take it. The taking of human life is permissible only if it is a necessary condition to achieving the greatest balance of good over evil for everyone involved. Given the value we place on life and our obligation to minimize suffering and pain whenever possible, if a less severe alternative to the death penalty exists which would accomplish the same goal, we are duty-bound to reject the death penalty in favor of the less severe alternative.

There is no evidence to support the claim that the death penalty is a more effective deterrent of violent crime than, say, life imprisonment. In fact, statistical studies that have compared the murder rates of jurisdictions with and without the death penalty have shown that the rate of murder is not related to whether the death penalty is in force: There are as many murders committed in jurisdictions with the death penalty as in those without. Unless it can be demonstrated that the death penalty, and the death penalty alone, does in fact deter crimes of murder, we are obligated to refrain from imposing it when other alternatives exist.

Further, the death penalty is not necessary to achieve the benefit of protecting the public from murderers who may strike again. Locking murderers away for life achieves the same goal without requiring us to take yet another life. Nor is the death penalty necessary to ensure that criminals "get what they deserve." Justice does not require us to punish murder by death. It only requires that the gravest crimes receive the severest punishment that our moral principles would allow us to impose.

While it is clear that the death penalty is by no means necessary to achieve certain social benefits, it does, without a doubt, impose grave costs on society. First, the death penalty wastes lives. Many of those sentenced to death could be rehabilitated to live socially productive lives. Carrying out the death penalty destroys any good such persons might have done for society if they had been allowed to live. Furthermore, juries have been known to make mistakes, inflicting the death penalty on innocent people. Had such innocent parties been allowed to live, the wrong done to them might have been corrected and their lives not wasted.

In addition to wasting lives, the death penalty also wastes money. Contrary to conventional wisdom, it's much more costly to execute a person than to imprison them for life. The finality of punishment by death rightly requires that great procedural precautions be taken throughout all stages of death penalty cases to ensure that the chance of error is minimized. As a result, executing a single capital case costs about three times as much as it costs to keep a person in prison for their remaining life expectancy, which is about 40 years.

Finally, the death penalty harms society by cheapening the value of life. Allowing the state to inflict death on certain of its citizens legitimizes the taking of life. The death of anyone, even a convicted killer, diminishes us all. Society has a duty to end this practice which causes such harm, yet produces little in the way of benefits.

Opponents of capital punishment also argue that the death penalty should be abolished because it is unjust. Justice, they claim, requires that all persons be treated equally. And the requirement that justice bc served is all the more rigorous when life and death are at stake. Of 19,000 people who committed willful homicides in the U.S. in 1987, only 293 were sentenced to death. Who are these few being selected to die? They are nearly always poor and disproportionately black. It is not the nature of the crime that determines who goes to death row and who doesn't. People go to death row simply because they have no money to appeal their case, or they have a poor defense, or they lack the funds to being witnesses to courts, or they are members of a political or racial minority.

The death penalty is also unjust because it is sometimes inflicted on innocent people. Since 1900, 350 people have been wrongly convicted of homicide or capital rape. The death penalty makes it impossible to remedy any such mistakes. If, on the other hand, the death penalty is not in force, convicted persons later found to be innocent can be released and compensated for the time they wrongly served in prison.

The case for and the case against the death penalty appeal, in different ways, to the value we place on life and to the value we place on bringing about the greatest balance of good over evil. Each also appeals to our commitment to"justice": Is justice to be served at all costs? Or is our commitment to justice to be one tempered by our commitment to equality and our reverence for life? Indeed, is capital punishment our duty or our doom?

(Capital punishment) is . . . the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal's deed, however calculated . . can be compared . . . For there to be an equivalence, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life. --Albert Camus

If . . . he has committed a murder, he must die. In this case, there is no substitute that will satisfy the requirements of legal justice. There is no sameness of kind between death and remaining alive even under the most miserable conditions, and consequently there is no equality between the crime and the retribution unless the criminal is judicially condemned and put to death. --Immanuel Kant

For further reading:

Hugo Adam Bedau, Death Is Different: Studies in the Morality, Law, and Politics of Capital Punishment (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1987).

Walter Berns, For Capital Punishment (New York: Basic Books, 1979.)

David Bruch, "The Death Penalty: An Exchange," The New Republic , Volume 192 (May 20, 1985), pp. 20-21.

Edward I. Koch, "Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life," The New Republic, Volume 192 (April 15,1985), pp. 13-15.

Ernest van den Haag and John P. Conrad , The Death Penalty: A Debate (New York: Plenum Press, 1983).

This article was originally published in Issues in Ethics - V. 1, N.3 Spring 1988

United States Supreme Court Building. Image by Mark Thomas from Pixabay.

Who can create the most artful hypothetical and are hypotheticals just a clever way to avoid the plain truth?

Register and Join Us on May 2nd!

On the multifaceted ethical issues presented by brain implants and AI, and efforts to address them.

Ronna Romney McDaniel, the chair of the Republican National Committee, speaks during the first day of the Republican National Committee convention Monday, Aug. 24, 2020, in Charlotte. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

NBC reversed itself on the hiring of Ronna McDaniel after the network’s top anchors mounted a revolt on air. We need a pro-democracy standard.

Capital Punishment – Moral or Immoral? Essay

Introduction, works cited.

Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.

The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).

Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims. The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).

It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter 10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).” (Kant).

Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand, retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18 th century abolitionist Cesare De Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole world blind.”

This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.

It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.

In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement, crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason, rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers. Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance of redemption.

Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent lives.

Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society. Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members, loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.

Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.

To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized? The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.

Kant, Immanuel. Death Penalty. Book Rags. 2008. Web.

Kant, Immanuel. Death Penalty: Retributive Arguments.. Book Rags. 2006. Web.

Student Essay on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe. Book Rags. 2006. Web.

Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, October 22). Capital Punishment – Moral or Immoral? https://ivypanda.com/essays/capital-punishment-moral-or-immoral/

"Capital Punishment – Moral or Immoral?" IvyPanda , 22 Oct. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/capital-punishment-moral-or-immoral/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Capital Punishment – Moral or Immoral'. 22 October.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Capital Punishment – Moral or Immoral?" October 22, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/capital-punishment-moral-or-immoral/.

1. IvyPanda . "Capital Punishment – Moral or Immoral?" October 22, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/capital-punishment-moral-or-immoral/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Capital Punishment – Moral or Immoral?" October 22, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/capital-punishment-moral-or-immoral/.

Blame Them if You Are a True Patriot
Acids, Bases and pH Testing: A Physics Lab
Is the Death Penalty Effective?
The Death Penalty, a Matter of Morals
Is Punishment Best Justified by a Utilitarian, Retributive or by a Mixed Theory?
Lethal Injection as Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Capital Punishment in the US Analysis
Death Penalty: Critical Thinking and Arguments

Persuasive Essay

Persuasive Essay About Death Penalty

Last updated on: Jan 2, 2024

Crafting a Compelling Persuasive Essay About Death Penalty

By: Donna C.

Reviewed By: Jacklyn H.

Published on: Jan 27, 2023

Writing a persuasive essay about the death penalty can be difficult. You want to make sure that your argument is convincing and well-reasoned.

It's important to get your persuasive essay about death row right because it's a topic that people feel passionately about.

You don't want to risk alienating your readers with a poorly written argument.

We can help you write an excellent persuasive essay about the death penalty. Our experienced writers know how to craft an argument to persuade your readers.

Let’s get started!

On this Page

What is a Persuasive Essay?

A persuasive essay is used to convince a reader about a particular idea or focus that you believe in. Your persuasive essay could be based on anything about which you can make a clear argument.

Whether you're arguing against junk food at school or petitioning for the removal of the death penalty, persuasive skills are essential.

When writing a persuasive essay, you need to think about what kind of evidence can support the death penalty argument.

Depending on your topic, this could include facts and data, examples from real life, or quotes from experts.

You want to convince them that your opinion is the one that matters most. After all, persuasion is at the heart of any successful essay.

So make sure you research and think carefully about presenting your argument!

Take a look at these persuasive essay topics and select the one that interests you the most!

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That's our Job!

Persuasive Essay About Death Penalty Examples

The death penalty is a highly controversial and polarizing topic. It is an issue that has been debated for centuries, with passionate advocates on both sides of the debate.

Unfortunately, there are still many countries in the world that practice capital crimes. This raises some very important ethical and moral questions for society.

One of the best ways to share their opinions is through persuasive essays. You can use the following essay samples as inspiration for writing an essay.

Example of a Persuasive essay about death penalty

Persuasive essay about death penalty in the Philippines

Short Persuasive essay about death penalty

Persuasive essay about death penalty should be abolished

The death penalty pros and cons essay

Argumentative Essay About Death Penalty Examples

In some countries, death penalties are still used as capital punishment to deter crimes.

However, there are also many people who argue that the death penalty should be abolished because it's inhumane.

The easiest way is to convey your thoughts through an argumentative essay. Check out these examples to see how you can structure your arguments.

Argumentative essay about death penalty in the Philippines

Argumentative essay about death penalty with introduction body conclusion

Argumentative essay about death penalty should be abolished

Argumentative essay about death penalty conclusion

Need more samples? Check out these persuasive essay examples !

Tough Essay Due? Hire Tough Writers!

Persuasive Essay Writing Tips

Writing a persuasive essay is all about making sure your opinion is heard. Be sure to create a persuasive essay outline before you start writing!

Here are some tips to help you make your argument convincing.

First, always start with an interesting introduction. Use creative language to capture the reader's attention and introduce the subject of your essay.
Second, back up your opinion with solid evidence. Provide facts, statistics, and quotes from reliable sources that can help strengthen your argument.
Third, make sure your prose is clear and concise. Don’t let long-winded sentences or complex language get in the way of getting your point across.
Finally, create a strong conclusion. Restate your argument and provide a call to action if appropriate. Ensure the reader knows exactly what you want them to do with this essay.

Need help with facts? Check out this video debate about the death penalty.

Time to wrap it up!

Writing a persuasive essay about the death penalty can be difficult, but it's important to get it right.

Since people feel passionate about the issue on both sides of the argument, your argument needs to be convincing.

If you're unsure how to do this, you can use our examples as inspiration.

Are you looking to create a powerful argument that will captivate your readers?

Our experienced writers will work with you to craft an argument to convince your readers.

SharkPapers.com is here to help!

Our essay writing service provides persuasive essays crafted by expert writers backed up with compelling evidence and research.

Our essay writer will create arguments that can make your reader understand and agree with your narrative.

We understand how important it is to ensure your essay is persuasive. As a result, we guarantee high-quality work every time.

Let our persuasive essay writer craft the perfect argument for you today! We guarantee that your writing will be persuasive and effective.

Our persuasive essay writing service can help you create powerful arguments for your essay. Get started today!

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the most persuasive argument for the death penalty.

When it comes to the death penalty, few arguments are as persuasive as this:

"Innocent persons have been put to death before - and it might continue to happen unless we do something about it".

That's why proponents of the death penalty often bring up the concept of "just deserts." This asserts that those guilty of a heinous crime deserve to receive a cruel and unusual punishment.

How do you start a persuasive speech on the death penalty?

You can start a persuasive speech through a hook statement, this will help pique the listeners attention. However, be sure to avoid biasness.

To start, establish why the audience should care about this. Present facts that highlight how unjust form of punishment it is.

What are good topics for persuasive essays?

Here is a list of inspiring persuasive essay topics:

Should people be punished for the crimes committed in rage?
Should unjustly arrested people be sentenced to death without getting the benefit of doubt?
Should government-funded jails in the United States stop considering a death penalty as morally just?
Do the wrongly executed people deserve an eye for an eye?
Is gun control necessary in society today?

Law, Education

Donna writes on a broad range of topics, but she is mostly passionate about social issues, current events, and human-interest stories. She has received high praise for her writing from both colleagues and readers alike. Donna is known in her field for creating content that is not only professional but also captivating.

Was This Blog Helpful?

Keep reading.

How To Write a Persuasive Essay That Wins Over Your Reader

200 Great Persuasive Essay Topics to Help Get You Started

14 Persuasive Essay Examples to Help You Get Started

How to Write a Persuasive Essay Outline: The Ultimate Guide

10+ Persuasive Essay About Gun Control Examples and Topics

Persuasive Essay About Covid-19: 11 Examples that Inspire

Writing a Persuasive Essay about Business: Examples & Tips

Writing a Persuasive Essay about Abortion: Tips and Examples

Persuasive Essay About Online Education Examples to Help You Out

Write a Persuasive Essay About Bullying With Our Examples

Writing Persuasive Essays About Smoking? Use These Samples

Learning From Pros To Write Persuasive Essays About Social Media

Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Contact Us

Your phone no.
Confirm Password
I have read Privacy Policy and agree to the Terms and Conditions .

FORGOT PASSWORD

SEND PASSWORD

Persuasive Essay Writing

Persuasive Essay About Death Penalty

Craft an Effective Argument: Examples of Persuasive Essay About Death Penalty

Published on: Jan 27, 2023

Last updated on: Jan 29, 2024

What Do We Mean by a Persuasive Essay?

A persuasive essay is a type of writing that attempts to persuade the reader or audience.

This essay usually presents an argument supported by evidence and examples. The main aim is to convince the reader or audience to take action or accept a certain viewpoint.

Persuasive essays may be written from a neutral or biased perspective and contain personal opinions.

To do this, you must provide clear reasoning and evidence to support your argument. Persuasive essays can take many forms, including speeches, letters, articles, and opinion pieces.

It is important to consider the audience when writing a persuasive essay. The language used should be tailored to their understanding of the topic.

Read our comprehensive guide on persuasive essays to know all about crafting excellent essays.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That's our Job!

Let's move on to some examples so that you can better understand this topic.

Persuasive Essay About Death Penalty Examples

Are you feeling stuck with the task of writing a persuasive essay about the death penalty?

Looking for some examples to get your ideas flowing?

Youâre in luck â weâve got just the thing! Take a look at these free downloadable examples.

Example of a Persuasive essay about death penalty

Persuasive essay about death penalty in the Philippines

Short Persuasive essay about death penalty

Persuasive essay about death penalty should be abolished

The death penalty pros and cons essay

Looking for some more examples on persuasive essays? Check out our blog about persuasive essay examples !

Argumentative Essay About Death Penalty Examples

We have compiled some of the best examples to help you start crafting your essay.

These examples will provide dynamic perspectives and insights from real-world legal cases to personal essays.

Have a look at them to get inspired!!

Argumentative essay about death penalty in the Philippines

Argumentative essay about death penalty with introduction body conclusion

Argumentative essay about death penalty should be abolished

Argumentative essay about death penalty conclusion

6 Tips To Write an A+ Persuasive Essay

We know it can be daunting to compose a perfect essay that effectively conveys your point of view to your readers. Worry no more.

Simply follow these 6 tips, and you will be on your way to a perfect persuasive essay.

1. Understand the assignment and audience

Before you start writing your essay, you must understand what type of essay you are being asked to write. Who your target audience should be?

Make sure you know exactly what youâre arguing for and against, as this will help shape your essay's content.

2. Brainstorm and research

Once you understand the topic better, brainstorm ideas that support your argument.

During this process, be sure to do additional research on any unfamiliar points or topics.

3. Create an outline

After doing your initial research, create an outline for your essay that includes all the main points you want to make.

This will help keep your thoughts organized and ensure you cover all the necessary points cohesively.

Check out our extensive guide on persuasive essay outlines to master the art of creating essays.

4. Make an argument

Use persuasive language and techniques to construct your essay. Strong evidence, such as facts and statistics, can also help to strengthen your argument.

5. Edit and revise

Before you submit your essay, take the time to edit and revise it carefully.

This will ensure that your argument is clear and concise and that there are no grammar or spelling errors.

6. Get feedback

Lastly, consider asking someone else to read over your essay before you submit it.

Feedback from another person can help you see any weaknesses in your argument or areas that need improvement.

Summing up,

Writing a persuasive essay about the death penalty doesnât have to be overwhelming. With these examples and tips, you can be sure to write an essay that will impress your teacher.

Whether itâs an essay about the death penalty or any other controversial topic, you can ace it with these steps!

Remember, the key is to be creative and organized in your writing!

Don't have time to write your essay?

Don't stress! Leave it to us! Our persuasive essay writing service is here to help!

Contact the team of experts at our essay writing service. We can help you write a creative, well-organized, and engaging essay for the reader.

Our persuasive essay writer will write the best essay for you at affordable rates! Moreover, we provide free revisions and other exclusive perks!

So don't delay! Ask us to write an essay for me today!

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the most persuasive argument for the death penalty.

The most persuasive argument for the death penalty is that it is a deterrent to violent crime.

The idea is that by punishing criminals, other potential criminals will be less likely to act out of fear of similar punishment.

How do you start a persuasive speech on the death penalty?

When starting a persuasive speech on the death penalty, begin by introducing and defining the topic. Provide an overview of the controversial issue.

Outline your points and arguments clearly, including evidence to support your position.

What are good topics for persuasive essays?

Good topics for persuasive essays include

Whether or not the death penalty is a fair punishment for violent crime
Whether harsher punishments will reduce crime rates
Will capital punishment is worth the costs associated with it
How rehabilitation should be taken into consideration when dealing with criminals.

Cathy A. (Marketing, Literature)

For more than five years now, Cathy has been one of our most hardworking authors on the platform. With a Masters degree in mass communication, she knows the ins and outs of professional writing. Clients often leave her glowing reviews for being an amazing writer who takes her work very seriously.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

Legal & Policies

Privacy Policy
Cookies Policy
Terms of Use
Refunds & Cancellations
Our Writers
Success Stories
Our Guarantees
Affiliate Program
Referral Program
AI Essay Writer

Disclaimer: All client orders are completed by our team of highly qualified human writers. The essays and papers provided by us are not to be used for submission but rather as learning models only.

Death Penalty Essays

Persuasive Speech against the Death Penalty Essay

Introduction.

What if one of your family members was wrongly convicted for murder? What if you were put on death row because you happened to be the last person seen leaving a crime scene where a bomb blew up and killed people? It is questions like these that raise public concern; people are more apathetic in cases where this form of injustice does not affect them, however, when a case of this nature becomes more personal, people are empathetic. Why should we be so selfish as to see what others suffer? Death penalty should be abolished because it demeans the quality of human life, it costs the country a lot of money, it results to the death of innocents, and because life without parole is a sensible alternative.

Struggling with your HW?

Get your assignments done by real pros. Save your precious time and boost your marks with ease. Just fill in your HW requirements and you can count on us!

Customer data protection
100% Plagiarism Free

There is a need to change the laws

There is a need to change the laws about capital punishment; according to Amnesty International, there is no credible evidence that capital punishment deters crime. According to an article titled, “Why the Death Penalty should be abolished” on the International Commission against the Death Penalty (2012), over 140 nations worldwide have abolished capital punishment; the United States remains among a handful that still advocate for death penalty. Some of these countries (China, Iraq and Iran) are notorious for human rights violations (ICDP, 2012).

According to an article titled, “Facts about the Death Penalty” on the Death Penalty Focus’ website (2013), the executions are funded with staggering figures in taxpayer’s money. Research shows that since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1978, the state of California has spent over $4 Billion on capital punishment. This is far much more than it would have cost the state to give life without parole. The death penalty has led to the death of innocents, this is a violation of human rights and dignity.

The ramification of upholding the death sentence is a raise in taxes due to future cases of crime; this might lead to inflation because of an excess supply of money. Tax payers could save a lot of money if capital punishment was abolished. A life sentence without the option of parole is, therefore, a good punishment alternative because it is more humane to jail than to kill. If I were ever going to be murdered, I would not want the convict to die because of me; if it were my family member who suffered this forbidden fate, I would not want anyone to kill for them. I would not sleep in peace knowing I advocated for the case of murder for murder.

Used our essay samples for inspiration ?

For more help, tap into our pool of professional writers and get expert essay editing services!

People have to change their attitudes about death penalty; change begins with us, the people. If the people champion for an alternative to the death penalty, it will send shockwaves through the law making units of the government. In the future, you, your friends or your family could be wrongly or rightfully convicted and sentenced to death; you can never know what the future has to hold. The uprising against the death penalty is not to protect criminals, but rather, to preserve human dignity, human rights and humanity at large.

I would urge one and all to join me in this human rights cause, to change public attitude towards death penalty, and to champion for an alternative form of punishment that is more humane and just. In the future, it could be you, your friend, you family that is wrongly convicted for murder; how do you choose to remember this day? Will it be the day that you championed for the death penalty, or the day that you voted against it? Make the right choice by moving for the abolishment of the death penalty law.

Death penalty should be abolished because there is no humane way to kill, you cannot reverse it. Abolishing the death penalty will not only put the country at par with others that uphold human rights and dignity, it will save the country a lot of money that could be used to assist the families of murder victims.

5 reasons to abolish the death penalty. (n.d.). Amnesty Australia. Retrieved April 17, 2014, from http://www.amnesty.org.au/adp/comments/29959/
Death Penalty : Facts. (2013, May 31). Death Penalty : Facts. Retrieved April 15, 2014, from http://www.deathpenalty.org/section.php?id=13
Why the Death Penalty should be abolished. (2014, April 16). International Commission against the Death Penalty RSS. Retrieved April 16, 2014, from http://www.icomdp.org/arguments-against-the-death-penalty/

Related Essays

Find Free Essays

We provide you with original essay samples, perfect formatting and styling

Request must contain at least 2 characters

Is Death Penalty Ethical

Category: Social Issues , Crime
Topic: Death Penalty , Punishment

Pages: 4 (1628 words)

Downloads: -->

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Criminal Justice Essays

Forensic Science Essays

White Collar Crime Essays

Hate Crime Essays

Identity Theft Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->