Taxpayers are currently responsible for the 63.

4 billion dollars annually invested in the

countrys prisons (CBS News.Cbsnews.com. ). This money goes into the incarceration of
prisoners, estimated at 31,286 dollars per prisoner for each taxpayer, among other things (The
New York Times). The decision over whether to develop compulsory death sentences for
specifically defined crimes, develop jury guidelines to reduce juror discretion (what a jury must
consider before the case moves on; aggravating and mitigating conditions), or to criminalize the
death penalty is one that would show a clear and final resolution to a long held debate over its
constitutionality and other disciplines (TheFreeDictionary.com).
One of the most disputed things over the course of American History is the
constitutionality of condoned murder (Procon). Since 1972, there have been three death penalty
cases that specify the legal standards over capital punishment. The inciting case is Furman v.
Georgia in late June of 1972. In a robbery gone wrong, William Furman accidentally killed a
tenant and his case, along with two others, helped set the future guidelines over a capital
sentence. (Capital Punishment in Context) The Supreme Court decided that the death penalty
infringes the eighth and fourteenth amendments and therefore issued a writ of certiorari for the
death penaltys unconstitutionality, at least until further proceedings (Death Penalty Information
Center). After this case, there was major conflict and discussion over this decision. Justices
William Brennan, William Douglas, and Thurgood Marshall all agreed that the death penalty
would always be a cruel and unusual punishment (TheFreeDictionary). However, Justice
Douglas also included that it was unfairly applied to those of a lower social class, and
impecunious people, which crossed the fourteenth amendment. Justice Potter Stewart thought
that the death penalty was like any other punishment as long as it was distributed fairly, but what
he said about the three cases was something that has remained very influential, Stewart said that

it was "wantonly and freakishly imposed" and inflicted in an arbitrary and capricious
manner."(Boston College Law Review. Law Journals at Digital Commons). The second case that
had a large impact on the legality of the death penalty was Gregg v. Georgia. In this case, Gregg
was filing an appeal in the Supreme Court, against his sentenced death penalty for murder,
claiming that it violated his rights and, bringing up Judge Stewarts words, was imposed
wantonly and freakishly by the jury. In this case, the court decided that Georgia was correct in
their judgement (Capital Punishment in Context) . They had implemented a new sentencing
procedure that circumscribed jury discretion. The sentencing authorities could no longer give
prominence to the deportment or history of the defendant, nor to the disposition or conditions of
the crime because that could allow the jury to inflict capital punishment in an unpredictable way.
They instead had to emphasis the details of the crime and the defendant. And, before the jury
could press for the death penalty they had to find one offense that was a capital crime with
aggravating circumstances (TheFreeDictionary). In that way, the U.S. Supreme Court decided
that the issues from the Furman case were not the same as those in this case. The last case that
argued over the death penalty itself is Woodson v. North Carolina. In 1976 North Carolina,
everyone who committed first degree murder was automatically sentenced to death. James
Woodson was convicted and sentenced, but he challenged it by saying it violated the eighth and
fourteenth rights (the same involved in the previous two cases) by not having a judge or jury. The
court reviewed the case and in a 5-4 ruling decided mandatory death sentences were
unconstitutional, so now even if a capital crime is committed there is a chance that you will not
be put to death (Capital Punishment in Context) . The problems attributed to the mandatory
sentencings were: that they did not fit in with contemporary values because the public
consistently rejected them; the law did not provide criteria for the jury to use as a guide to wield

their power to determine which capital crime offenders should live and die; and, as was ruled the
same day, did not allow for the consideration of the character of the offender and circumstances
of the crime like the Gregg v. Georgia case (Capital Punishment in Context) .
Like the three cases that debate the constitutionality of the death penalty, there are three
cases that show the fickleness, or at the very least indecision, of the U.S. Supreme Court. These
cases all discuss the age you have to be during a crime to be able to avoid the death penalty. They
are Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988), Stanford v. Kentucky (1989), and Roper v. Simmons (2005).
Thompson was a 15 year old who actively participated in a gruesome murder, Stanford was 17
year old who committed murder, sodomy, and robbery, and Simmons was also 17 and he planned
and committed a murder. In Thompsons trial, where he was being tried as an adult, the issue was
whether or not being under 16 violates the eighth amendment (OYEZ). This was the same
question being tried in both Stanford and Simmons cases, just with different ages. In 1988, the
court decided that the community found it generally abhorrent to execute someone under the age
of 16, and it also held that a defendant can not be executed by a law that has no minimum age
because that violates the constitution.In the Stanford case, the court ended with the decision that
it was not unconstitutional to impose the death penalty on 16 and 17 year olds which goes
against the Thompson v. Oklahoma case saying that 16 year olds and under could not be
executed(OYEZ). The Roper v. Simmons case was resolved with the decision that it was
unconstitutional to execute minors for reasons like being the only country in the world to have a
juvenile death penalty, juveniles being less morally reprehensible, and juveniles having a greater
excuse for not being able to escape the negative influences in their life(OYEZ).
The three possible solutions that would finally set the United States straight on whether
or not they would condone the death penalty are developing mandatory death sentences for

specifically defined crimes (very similar to the mandatory death penalty ruling in Woodson v.
North Carolina), developing jury guidelines to reduce juror discretion (what a jury must consider
before the case moves on; aggravating and mitigating conditions as was done and supported in
Georgia in Gregg v. Georgia), or to criminalize the death penalty (as was done from 1972-1976
for Furman v. Georgia to Gregg v. Georgia). The original proposition would be to state
government, then move up to the federal level. The ideal solution for Ohioans would be to ban
the death penalty. There are many reasons why this is the obvious answer, some of which will be
explained more thoroughly later on. However, stopping the death penalty will stop the everliving arguments about morality, constitutionality, system complaints, international image, jury
reluctance, innocent death, race/income based convictions, budgeting, and religion.Michael
Radelet and Marian Borg, both having their doctorates in Sociology, wrote a paper on the
changing nature of death penalty debates, saying These changes [in public opinion regarding the
death penalty] suggest a gradual movement toward the eventual abolition of capital punishment
in America (The Changing Nature of Death Penalty Debates. JSTOR.) They claim that 6
specific areas are at the heart of this change: caprice and bias, cost, deterrence, incapacitation,
innocence, and retribution. These areas overlap with the reasons listed earlier almost perfectly,
but they missed one of the most important topics about the death penalty; the morality of killing
a human being, something that will be further discussed. Retribution, or revenge, is a very
common first thought when the idea of banning capital punishment is brought up. Minds
immediately race to the victims. If justice is not served, then their lives were lost in vain. Except,
ending a murderers life does not honor the victim. It certainly does not revive them. One could
say that in killing the killer their memory will be everlasting in a way, always twined with the
death of another. But, it is not a very good way to be remembered. Also, if the death penalty

became a way of retribution, it would become part of the process for closure for the family. But
what about the familys who do not get the killer convicted? Does that mean the life of their
loved one was worth less than that of a murderer? Or that their beloved was not as good as other
victims? It is simply not a rational idea(The Changing Nature of Death Penalty Debates.
JSTOR.). Proof of victims being a first thought is shown by the substantial amount of websites
citing the victims as reason for the death penalty. Like Lavonne Hohn, mother of a murder
victim says, To those of you who support the death penalty because of the victims,...the death
penalty does not help us. It does not bring our loved one back. It does not help us get our lives
back on track. It does not bring us closure. (Helena Independent Record). Other examples are a
Quaker father who lost his daughter, We believe the man who killed our daughter must be held
fully accountable. However, further feelings of him would give him a hold on our life that we do
not wish to grant... We lost our daughter and life as we knew it, we do not intend to lose our
values too. (Death Penalty Focus).
Abolishing the death penalty will not only help with family healing, but also will save
money, prevent innocent lives from being snuffed out of existence, and protect offenders from a
racial, ethnical, and social leveling based administration of the death penalty. The first benefit of
banning the death penalty would be social, the protection of innocent lives. Since 1970, there
have been 150 people released, after sentencing, from the death row for their innocence (Death
Penalty Information Center). That is over 3 people a year who were wrongly convicted. And, the
average amount of time between sentencing and exoneration is over 10 years. Ten years in a cell
for a crime they did not commit. According to various sources (Scientific American Global SS,
National Geographic), about 4.1% of the people sent to death row are innocent. The second
benefit would be cultural, protecting offenders against racial, ethnic, and socio-economic biasing.

A study from General Accounting shows that in 82 percent of the studies, race of the victim was
found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death
penalty,(Death Penalty Focus). Another interesting bit of information is that in California while
only 27% of murder victims are white, 80% of executions are for people convicted for killing a
white person (Death Penalty Focus). There was a study performed by the University of Nebraska
Lincoln, the same case was changed making the offender hispanic or white, rich or poor, strong
or weak evidence. Each juror, either white or hispanic, had different situations. The whites
were more likely to sentence them to death if they were poor or hispanic with weak mitigating
evidence, imposing them to capital punishment about half the time. If the defendant were white
and poor, they sentenced them to death around a third of the time, and if the defendant were
white, rich, but with weak mitigating conditions they were imposed to death around a quarter of
them time. In contrast, the hispanics only sent for the death penalty about a quarter of the time,
regardless of conditions (UNL Newsroom). The third benefit is economic, banning the death
penalty would save our country thousands. According to the Washington State Bar Association, a
capital case costs almost half a million dollars more than a normal case would (Final Report of
the Death Penalty Subcommittee of the Committee of Public Defense.). Even if there is no trial, it
still costs double what a case not trying for the death penalty (Forbes). Aside from the cases and
trials themselves, the housing of a death row prisoner is more than twice an average prisoner,
costing around fifty thousand a year. In California, the total system costs 137 million annually. It
could be cut down to less than twelve million if the system cut out the death penalty
(CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE).
The solution intended would most likely incur many reactions, some positive, some not
so much. Some political actors that could impact, or help/prevent the solution from moving

forward are Tony Goldwyn, a media based political actor, construction companies, which are not
political actors but are a well funded bunch of companies that could buy some and so are Special
Interest Groups, Michael Radelet a anti-death penalty Professor, who is an influential citizen, and
Bob Taft, Ohios old governor.
One political actor who not only supports the phasing out of capital punishment, but is
producing a show about it to raise awareness and help turn peoples opinions about it around is
Tony Goldwyn. He would have a huge impact on the solution, and his show would help
influence people and gather support. Tony Goldwyn is producing a show called The Divide and it
brings up two of the drawbacks of the death penalty, its racial bias and the danger of its
execution mannerisms. He mentions during an interview that he had heard about the 4% of death
row prisoners are actually innocent and seemed very passionate about it (Mother Jones).The
second political actor that would have an impact on the solution is not so much a person as a
sector, the construction sector. In just California alone, they are planning on spending over 350
million for a new building, and nearly 400 million on another. They try to have a very negative
impact on my solution, most likely bringing up propaganda like advertising to sway possible
supporters away(CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE). A political actor that stands to gain from my solution is Michael L. Radelet, a
Professor, Associate Chair of D.o.S., and a well published author known for speaking against the
death penalty (The Changing Nature of Death Penalty Debates. JSTOR.), and one who stands to
lose is ex-Governor Bob Taft who is said to have won his re-election because his opponent
promised clemency to any inmate nearing his execution (New Voices). Michael Radelet once said
at a conference Even if one concedes, for the sake of argument, that some people deserve to
die, we run into all sorts of problems drawing the line between who deserves to live and who

deserves to die... At the end of the day, we make so many mistakes in making those decisions
that the only clear lesson is that we do not deserve to kill."(Procon). It is his argument on why he
believes the death penalty should not be allowed. It brings up the morality of it. He also brought
up a quote in his book by Marvin Wolfgang, about whether a penalty could be made in the name
of justice. He said that For Wolfgang, the question became not Who deserves to die? but
instead Who deserves to kill? (The Changing Nature of Death Penalty Debates. JSTOR.). Bob
Taffet is no longer governor but he would still like to be a part of his political party, something
that seems to be getting difficult because of the scandal 10 years ago. His record has yet to be
expunged and so he has avoided all mention of them until he gets it cleaned, and allowing a
repeal against a Republican approved law would not help.
In summary, the best possible solution over the death penaltys restrictions, jury
adjustments, and abolishment is to ban capital punishment. It is the only rational answer because
it saves money and protects people, while keeping people just as deterred as the actual death
penalty would, and by incapacitating the same people in a much more humane way.Many people
agree that it is just a matter of time before the death penalty is banned, as said in The Changing
Nature of Death Penalty Debates.
Now as a fully informed American citizen, one is expected to do their best in this countrys best
interests, which is of course to ban the death penalty. Some ways to do this are, sharing
knowledge with friends, joining an online anti-death penalty group, writing to the nearest
congressmen, and fully expressing the strong ideas and opinions through blogging or vlogging.

Works Cited
Baiker, Katherine. The Budgetary Repercussions of Capital Convictions. Working paper no.
8382. 1st ed. Vol. 4. N.p.: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2001. Print. Working
Paper Ser.
Caldwell, Patrick. ""Scandal" Star Tony Goldwyn's Latest Project: A Death Penalty Drama."
Mother Jones. Mother Jones, Sept.-Oct. 2014. Web. 2 Feb. 2015.
CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. Rep.
California, 30 June 2008. Web. 2 Feb. 2015.
Committee, Judicial. Report of Judicial Council Death Penalty Advisory Committee. Rep. Death
Penalty Information Center, 13 Feb. 2014. Web. 2 Feb. 2015.
"The Cost of a Nation of Incarceration." CBS News 23 Apr. 2012: n. pag. Cbsnews.com. Web. 30
Jan. 2015.
"Costs of the Death Penalty." DPIC. Death Penalty Information Center, n.d. Web. 01 Feb. 2015.
"Death Penalty." BalancedPolitics. Balanced Politics, n.d. Web. 01 Feb. 2015.
"Death Penalty Focus : Lethal Injection." Death Penalty Focus . DPF, n.d. Web. 01 Feb. 2015.
Erb, Kelly. "Considering The Death Penalty: Your Tax Dollars At Work." Forbes. Forbes
Magazine, 1 May 2014. Web. 03 Feb. 2015.
"Essay: Arguments against the Death Penalty." Schoolworkhelper. Schoolworkhelper, 17 May
2012. Web. 01 Feb. 2015.
"Execution Methods." American Civil Liberties Union. ACLU, n.d. Web. 29 Jan. 2015.
"The Facts: 13 Reasons to Oppose the Death Penalty." Oregonians For Alternatives to the Death

Penalty. Oregonians For Alternatives to the Death Penalty, n.d. Web. 31 Jan. 2015.
Final Report of the Death Penalty Subcommittee of the Committee of Public Defense. Rep.
Washington State Bar Association, Dec. 2006. Web. 2 Feb. 2015.
Flanagan, Kevin. "Against the Death Penalty." Berkley. Wooster Polytechnical Institute, n.d.
Web. 01 Feb. 2015.
"Furman v. Georgia." Capital Punishment in Context. CPIC, n.d. Web. 03 Feb. 2015.
Gregg v. Georgia. 16. US Supreme Court. N.d. ProCon. Web. 6 Oct. 2008.
"Gregg v Georgia." Capital Punishment in Context. CPIC, n.d. Web. 1 Feb. 2015.
H, Olivia. "Capital Punishment Is Dead Wrong." Teenink. Emerson Media, n.d. Web. 01 Feb.
2015.
Hennessy-Fiske, Molly. "Death Penalty: Cost of Execution Drugs -- and Executions -- Rises."
Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 24 Feb. 2012. Web. 30 Jan. 2015.
Hirby, J. "What Is the Average Cost to House Inmates in Prison." The Law Dictionary. The Law
Dictionary, n.d. Web. 30 Jan. 2015.
Hoeffel, Janet C. "Risking the Eight Amendment: Arbitrariness, Juries, and Discretion in Capital
Cases." Boston College Law Review 4th ser. 46.4 (2005): 771-75. Law Journals at Digital
Commons. Boston College Law School, 1 July 2005. Web. 1 Feb. 2015.
Hohn, Lavonne. "Death Penalty Fails Victims' Families." Helena Independent Record. N.p., 17
Feb. 2013. Web. 02 Feb. 2015.
Hughes, Virginia. "How Many People Are Wrongly Convicted? Researchers Do the Math."
National Geographic. National Geographic, 28 Apr. 2014. Web. 02 Feb. 2015.
"Innocence: List of Those Freed From Death Row." Death Penalty Information Center. Death
Penalty Information Center, n.d. Web. 02 Feb. 2015.

"Jackson v. Georgia." TheFreeDictionary.com. Free Dictionary, n.d. Web. 01 Feb. 2015.

"Lethal Injection." Amnesty International USA. Amnesty International USA, n.d. Web. 01 Feb.
2015.
Lowe, Wesley. "THE DEATH PENALTY IN THE UNITED STATES." Capital Punishment in
the United States. Wesley Lowe, 17 Jan. 2011. Web. 01 Feb. 2015.
Maron, Dina. "Many Prisoners on Death Row Are Wrongfully Convicted." Scientific American
Global RSS. Scientific American, 28 Apr. 2014. Web. 02 Feb. 2015.
"Millions Misspent: What Politicians Dont Say About the High Costs of the Death Penalty."
DPIC. Death Penalty Information Center, n.d. Web. 01 Feb. 2015.
"New Voices - Political Leaders." New Voices. Death Penalty Information Center, n.d. Web. 02
Feb. 2015.
Prejeans, Helen, Sister. "Would Jesus Pull the Switch? by Sister Helen Prejean." Claretianpubs.
Claretian Publications, 1997. Web. 01 Feb. 2015.
"Racial Disparities." Death Penalty Focus . Death Penalty Focus, n.d. Web. 02 Feb. 2015.
Radelet, Michael L., and Marian J. Borg. The Changing Nature of Death Penalty Debates.
JSTOR. ITHAKA, Aug. 200. Web. 2 Feb. 2015.
Rafferty, Shannon. "Death Penalty Persuasive Essay." Shannon Rafferty EPortfolio RSS. Word
Press, 24 Apr. 2014. Web. 01 Feb. 2015.
"Reasons to Be Against the Death Penalty." Anti-Death Penalty. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Jan. 2015.
"ROPER v. SIMMONS." OYEZ. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Feb. 2015.
Rothman, Noah. "Nancy Grace: With Lethal Injection Becoming Too Costly, Is Firing Squad a
Viable Alternative?" Mediaite. Mediaite Llc, 15 Jan. 2014. Web. 01 Feb. 2015.
Safdar, Khadeeja. "Legally Killing People Has Gotten A Lot More Expensive." The Huffington

Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 30 Mar. 2012. Web. 01 Feb. 2015.

Santora, Marc. "City's Annual Cost Per Inmate Is $168,000, Study Finds." The New York Times.
The New York Times, 23 Aug. 2013. Web. 26 Jan. 2015.
Sickle, Allison. "What's the Cheapest Way to Execute Evildoers? | VICE | United States." VICE.
Vice, 3 Apr. 2012. Web. 01 Feb. 2015.
Sullivan, Jennifer. "Seeking Death Penalty Adds $1M to Prosecution Cost, Study Says." The
Seattle Times. Seattle Times Network, 7 Jan. 2015. Web. 01 Feb. 2015.
"United States Supreme Court Decisions: 1972 - 1996." Death Penalty Information Center.
DPIC, n.d. Web. 03 Feb. 2015.
Wilcox, Nick. "Parents of Murdered Daughter Speak Out Against the Death Penalty." Death
Penalty Focus . Death Penalty Focus, n.d. Web. 02 Feb. 2015.
Willis, Cythia. "UNL Study Examines Racial Bias in Death-penalty Decisions." UNL Newsroom.
University of Nebraska Lincoln, 1 Sept. 2014. Web. 02 Feb. 2015.