Is The Death Penalty a Bad Public Policy?
The justice system in the United States is nowhere near perfect, but over the years it has been molded and developed in such ways that it is currently working to the best of it’s ability. The death penalty is a largely controversial in today’s society; there are many arguments both for and against the death penalty. Realistically though, the death penalty is necessary. While each state has the right to their own decisions about whether to install the death penalty or not, federally, capital punishment is still used. The death penalty is arguably expensive and morally wrong, although for tremendously heinous crimes it could be justified.
The biggest defense against the use of capital punishment in our justice system is that it is costlier to keep individuals on death row than it is to keep them in prison for life. “California taxpayers pay $90,000 more per death row prisoner each year than on prisoners in regular confinement” (Drehle, 2013). Through the cost of trials, keeping the individual on death row, as well as the actual cost of the death penalty itself, the price tag skyrockets. Others also argue that it is immoral and unjust based of the double standard. The death penalty on the surface appears to be hypocritical, the execution of an individual who killed someone else. Our justice system has established punitive methods that include a proportionate correlation between crime and punishment, but in some people’s eyes they see the death penalty as cruel and unusual no matter the crime. On the contrary the death penalty is highly favorable in the aspect of retribution, which is the punishment of a criminal as retaliation for their crime. It stands to reason that the victims and those who are affected by heinous crimes would want some sort …show more content…
It really holds to each individual’s belief in the proper way of punishing criminals and their own standard of what is defined as cruel and unusual. In retrospect, the death penalty might have many viable arguments against its use, but the only argument that I can hold true and reasonable debate to be true is the essence of justice. Those who spend life in prison are certainly not in likable conditions but they still have a warm place to sleep, medical care, resources, and three meals a day, unlike their victims. Capital punishment might not offer any deterrence of future murderers or terrorists but it offers justice for the victim, in addition to a peace of mind for the victim’s family. Individuals, who feel strongly about keeping the death penalty in place, are sometimes quick to suggest that it be imposed on a large variety of criminals such as rapists. The current standard for the death penalty, in my opinion, is effective the way it is and it should be preserved. The execution of rapists, even child sex offenders, would be considered cruel and unusual with the reason that the victim didn’t die. While those victims might be seriously disturbed for the duration of their lives, they were not robbed of their life unlike homicide victims. The death penalty for murderers and terrorists, with the exclusion of juveniles and incompetent individuals, is generally an effective policy in the sense that it offers retribution. The minimal deterrence that it might impose on other criminals, is better than none and also worth it if it does instill some thought within criminals who have the potential to become
The justice system in the United States is nowhere near perfect, but over the years it has been molded and developed in such ways that it is currently working to the best of it’s ability. The death penalty is a largely controversial in today’s society; there are many arguments both for and against the death penalty. Realistically though, the death penalty is necessary. While each state has the right to their own decisions about whether to install the death penalty or not, federally, capital punishment is still used. The death penalty is arguably expensive and morally wrong, although for tremendously heinous crimes it could be justified.
The biggest defense against the use of capital punishment in our justice system is that it is costlier to keep individuals on death row than it is to keep them in prison for life. “California taxpayers pay $90,000 more per death row prisoner each year than on prisoners in regular confinement” (Drehle, 2013). Through the cost of trials, keeping the individual on death row, as well as the actual cost of the death penalty itself, the price tag skyrockets. Others also argue that it is immoral and unjust based of the double standard. The death penalty on the surface appears to be hypocritical, the execution of an individual who killed someone else. Our justice system has established punitive methods that include a proportionate correlation between crime and punishment, but in some people’s eyes they see the death penalty as cruel and unusual no matter the crime. On the contrary the death penalty is highly favorable in the aspect of retribution, which is the punishment of a criminal as retaliation for their crime. It stands to reason that the victims and those who are affected by heinous crimes would want some sort …show more content…
It really holds to each individual’s belief in the proper way of punishing criminals and their own standard of what is defined as cruel and unusual. In retrospect, the death penalty might have many viable arguments against its use, but the only argument that I can hold true and reasonable debate to be true is the essence of justice. Those who spend life in prison are certainly not in likable conditions but they still have a warm place to sleep, medical care, resources, and three meals a day, unlike their victims. Capital punishment might not offer any deterrence of future murderers or terrorists but it offers justice for the victim, in addition to a peace of mind for the victim’s family. Individuals, who feel strongly about keeping the death penalty in place, are sometimes quick to suggest that it be imposed on a large variety of criminals such as rapists. The current standard for the death penalty, in my opinion, is effective the way it is and it should be preserved. The execution of rapists, even child sex offenders, would be considered cruel and unusual with the reason that the victim didn’t die. While those victims might be seriously disturbed for the duration of their lives, they were not robbed of their life unlike homicide victims. The death penalty for murderers and terrorists, with the exclusion of juveniles and incompetent individuals, is generally an effective policy in the sense that it offers retribution. The minimal deterrence that it might impose on other criminals, is better than none and also worth it if it does instill some thought within criminals who have the potential to become