The Death Penalty: A Necessity in America

The death penalty is one of the most controversial issues in American society. Some states have banned capital punishment entirely. Anti-death penalty advocates argue that the Supreme Court should abolish the death penalty because it cannot be fairly applied. But if we ban the use of the death penalty, we are giving up an important tool in our justice system. The death penalty is the only appropriate punishment for the worst crimes; it serves as the ultimate deterrent for would-be criminals and it assures the families of victims and society as a whole that justice has been served.

The death penalty has been used and questioned throughout history. During the Enlightenment in Europe, Cesare Beccaria asked, “Is it not absurd that the laws which detest and punish homicide should, in order to prevent murder, publicly commit murder themselves?” (Guernsey 11). The Eighth Amendment bans “cruel and unusual punishment.” However, in Gregg v. Georgia, the Supreme Court determined “the infliction of death as a punishment for murder is not…is not unconstitutionally severe” (15). The Court has recurrently debated the death penalty but has always determined it a constitutional practice.

The death penalty is the only suitable punishment for some crimes. It is often applied when crimes are unbelievably horrific, like the case of serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer. It is also an appropriate punishment for terrorists, who consider human life inferior to their own political or religious aims. One recent example is Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, accused of conspiracy to set off a bomb at the Boston Marathon in 2013 (Williams). Constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein argues that “the death penalty honors human dignity by treating the defendant as a free moral actor…” (procon.org). The death penalty assumes that people are capable of determining what is right and wrong and treats them accordingly.

Some citizens oppose the death penalty. One argument is that racial inequalities may plague the legal system. However, that does not mean that the justice system itself is racist. In 2001, Roger Clegg pointed that “Capital criminals don’t look like America…. No one is surprised to find more men than women...Nor is it a shock to find that this group contains more twenty-year-olds than septuagenarians” (Top 10 Pros and Cons - Death Penalty). Anti-death penalty groups also argue that the costs associated with the death penalty are too high. A 2013 study in Colorado found that “[life-without-parole] cases took an average of 526 days to complete; death cases took almost 4 calendar years longer” (deathpenaltyinfo.org). This lengthy process ensures that by the time the state is prepared to execute a criminal, they are convinced of beyond a reasonable doubt that the punishment fits the crime.

A lack of ultimate punishment could lead to societal degradation. A Michigan Law Review study found that by “using large data sets that combine information from all fifty states over many years…on average, an additional execution deters many murders” (Mandery 58). The death penalty exemplifies the biblical concept of “an eye for an eye” through the mechanisms of the legal system. J. Budziszewski of the University of Texas argues that the death penalty “protects society morally by restoring…order, making the wrongdoer pay a price equivalent to the harm he has done…” (Top 10 Pros and Cons - Death Penalty). The punishment also provides solace for families who have lost a loved one without allowing society to break down into a state of revenge. A 2003 Baltimore Sun article focuses on Steven Howard Oken, who killed three women in the 1980s, including the sister of death penalty advocate Fred Romano. Romano worries that eventually “… some other idiot will come along and say life without parole is too harsh. Then they’ll pass a bill granting them parole and then we’ll have a bunch of murderers walking the streets” (Kane). If we expect the death penalty to be an effective deterrent, we need to be firm and swift when we deliver the application.

The death penalty should not be abolished. As long as criminals do not hesitate to commit terrible acts, we must be prepared to meet those acts with the ultimate punishment. Our readiness to punish those crimes with execution deters other crimes. When we justly put someone to death, we are maintaining balance in society and providing solace to the victims of crimes. The death penalty should not be used lightly, but that does not mean it should not be used at all. We must preserve the death penalty and stand against anti-death penalty advocates who would remove the teeth from American justice.

Works Cited

"Costs of the Death Penalty." DPIC. N.p., n.d. Guernsey, JoAnn Bren. Death Penalty: Fair Solution or Moral Failure? Minneapolis: Twenty-First Century Books, 2010.

Kane, Gregory. "To Murder Victims' Families, Executing Killers Is Justice." baltimoresun.com. N.p., 5 Feb. 2003.

Mandery, Evan J.. Capital Punishment: A Balanced Examination. Sudbury, Mass.: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2005.

"Top 10 Pros and Cons - Death Penalty - ProCon.org." ProConorg Headlines. N.p., 13 Apr. 2009.

Williams, Pete. "Feds to Seek Death Penalty against Accused Boston Bomber Tsarnaev." NBC News. N.p., 30 Jan. 2014.