Why the United States Should Abolish the Death Penalty

Introduction: The Case Against Capital Punishment

Having a death penalty in the United States does not make sense. The U.S. is the only civilized Western nation that still practices it (Clark et al., 2004). Other nations consider the death penalty immoral and opposed to democratic principles because it allows the government to kill its own citizens, which violates fundamental human rights and increases the likelihood of tyranny. As a punishment for crime, the death penalty cannot be administered fairly or impartially within our criminal justice system ("Innocence and the Death Penalty," 2005). Some of the people who are executed are innocent (Hall, 2003). From a practical standpoint, the death penalty is an expensive and ineffective way to control crime (Sherrill, 2001). For all of these reasons, the death penalty should be abolished in the United States.

A Brief History of Capital Punishment in the U.S.

We did not always have the death penalty. During the 1950s and early 1960s, most Americans were against capital punishment, and those in favor of it were a "distinct and dwindling minority," according to the Supreme Court. However, Richard Nixon revived the idea as a national campaign issue during his 1968 presidential election, and Ronald Reagan did the same for his 1972 California gubernatorial campaign (Sherrill, 2001). The result was that executions were re-instituted. Who receives the death penalty has been a troubling question ever since.

Arbitrariness and Prosecutorial Politics

Only one in a hundred convicted murderers receives a death sentence. The question is: how do we decide who that one person should be? It is not necessarily the person who has committed the most heinous crime. We are all familiar with cases where abhorrent and malicious crimes were committed and the perpetrator — Charles Manson, for example — received a sentence of life in prison. On the other hand, a person who was merely part of a liquor store robbery and did not actually pull the trigger may be sentenced to death, as may a high-profile defendant like Scott Peterson, whose case drew enormous public attention. The selection process is deeply inconsistent.

How does a prosecuting attorney decide whether or not to seek the death penalty? In most cases, politics plays a significant role. When a district attorney is considering a run for governor or attorney general, he or she needs favorable publicity and a reputation among voters as being "tough on crime." A capital case and a death penalty conviction offer a ready path to front-page coverage. A person's life, no matter what that person has done, should not depend on a prosecutor's political ambitions. As Sherrill (2001) states, "Misconduct abounds. Prosecutors who bully, lie and misuse or hide evidence are as common as baseball players who chew gum. In all the most active capital-punishment states, prosecutors often build their cases by hiding evidence and using jailhouse snitches eager to lie in return for lower sentences for themselves" (p. 16).

Conclusion: Abolish the Death Penalty

The death penalty is a barbaric and outmoded form of punishment. In a contradictory message, it declares: "Don't kill anybody — if you do, we'll kill you." When the state authorizes killing, a violent tone is set for all of society. The death penalty cannot be administered fairly. The hundreds of millions of dollars spent on executions could be better used to increase the number of police on the streets and to fund social programs and services for young people that would help prevent violent crime in the first place.