[Last Name] 1

Andrew Quiroz

Moore

1301-01

18, October 2018

Death Penalty

The death penalty is a punishment practice used in the United States for someone who is

accused of a capital crime, typically, murder and is sentenced to the ultimate punishment of

execution. This practice has been a custom in America history and even used today. According

to CNN.com, “Since 1776 the amount of execution the US Supreme Court has executed over

1,481 people with the reinstatement of the death penalty”. This number looks staggering and

many people have different views and opinions dealing with the death penalty and whether it is

moral and the best way to protect and handle cases in today's day in age. James Acker, a

distinguished teaching professor at the University of Albany, states in his article “A Snake Oil

with a Bite” that to be eligible for the death penalty, “the defendant must be first convicted for a

capital crime” with proof for the defendant's guilt phase of the trial (Acker). More than half the

states in the United States allow capital punishment (Death Penalty) for criminals that have

committed capital crimes. With the introduction to LWOP, or life without parole, this gives the

argument for an alternative for the death penalty to serve justice for the victim's family members

and friends. The death penalty causes lots of debate and arguments whether someone should

receive and be sentenced to the death penalty. The controversy surrounding the death penalty

centers around the morality and whether it protects the defendant's humane rights with the

executions and also what other ways can justice be served for victims of capital crimes.
 [Last Name] 2

Activist that oppose the death penalty want to improve the defendant's humane rights

because they are humans as well. Ingrid Nicolau a professor Spiru Haret University, states in

their article “Historical Evolution of the Death Penalty”, that the Universal Declaration on

Human Rights in 1948 states, “Every individual has the right to life, liberty, and the security of

his person” (Nicolau). She also suggests that the times the defendant's times are not protected are

when they are executed due to the ultimate punishment of the death penalty. Without the

protection of the defendant’s natural-born human rights, this gives the argument to death penalty

supporters to whether the death penalty fundamentally correct to use in today's day in age.

Opponents of the death penalty suggest alternative punishments for the criminal to help protect

their human rights such as the life without parole. To ensure the best way to handle and protect

the defendant’s human rights, activist that oppose the death penalty believe that the government

should abolition the executions.

People in support of the death penalty believe that anything other than the death penalty

wouldn’t give the justice that is due for the victim and the victim’s friends and family. Edward

Fesar associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College states that to correctly punish

and sentence criminals of capital crimes anything less than death would fail to bring justice

(Fesar). Professor Fesar is stating that anything less than death for a criminal's actions, such as a

capital crime, would not bring justice to the victim or their friends and families. Finding ways to

serve justice for those victimized in the capital crime should be the priority in any case dealing

with the death penalty. The victims' families should have the benefit of the doubt that the

criminal should be properly punished for their actions and not receive any incentives or anything

less than the death penalty. To overlook the defendant's humane rights and first give the victims
 [Last Name] 3

the rights to serve justice for victims for the criminal punishment is a must. Criminals should be

properly punished so justice is brought to the victim and their families.

Opponents and supporters of the death penalty argue the benefits and problems of the

death penalty and LWOP. Opponents of the death penalty have adopted the idea of the LWOP as

an alternative for the death penalty. Carol S.Steiker a Professor of Law at the University of

Harvard, says in her article the introduction to “life without possibility of parole or LWOP”,

which started in the 1970s “directly promoted the phenomenon of mass incarceration” (Steiker

197). With a proper punishment of life without parole and protects the defendant’s humans'

rights and is moral to adopted in today's day in age. Some states have begun to abolition the

death penalty and have taken steps to adopt the LWOP concept. With more respect to the

defendant's morals and less violence being committed in states this is why opponents of the death

penalty favor LWOP movement.

Hearing both arguments about the death penalty some changes or adjustments should be

made to find some middle ground between the opponents and supporters of the death penalty.

Whether it is mentally and physically unjust to execute a criminal as an act of punishment,

someone would have to view both sides of the argument to make a final decision on the death

penalty. If a person's family member or friend was killed by a criminal, they would want the

maximum punishment for their actions. On the other hand, that person is also a human being, no

matter any circumstances the defendant and his or her supporters would want them to be able to

live. LWOP gives the answer to that question and is also an effective alternative to help

eliminate the social dilemma in execution in today's day in age. The death penalty is a debatable

topic with lots of controversy surrounding it, people need to protect the morals and rights of the

criminal but also give justice to the victims of the crime committed on them.
 [Last Name] 4

Work Cited

Nasif, Noelle, et al. “Racial Exclusion and Death Penalty Juries: Can Death Penalty Juries Ever

Be Representative?” Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy, vol. 27, no. 2, Spring 2018,

pp. 147–166. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=129603750&site=ehost-live.

Acker, James R. “Snake Oil with a Bite: The Lethal Veneer of Science and Texas’s Death

Penalty.” Albany Law Review, vol. 81, no. 3, July 2018, pp. 751–805. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=130844372&site=ehost-live

. Steiker, Carol S., and Jordan M. Steiker. “The Death Penalty and Mass Incarceration:

Convergences and Divergences.” American Journal of Criminal Law, vol. 41, no. 2, Spring

2014, pp. 189–207. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=97023433&site=ehost-live.

NICOLAU, INGRID. “Historical Evolution of the Death Penalty Abolition as a Fundamental

Human Right.” Contemporary Readings in Law & Social Justice, vol. 5, no. 2, June 2013, pp.

278–283. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lgh&AN=93326113&site=ehost-live.
 [Last Name] 5

Library, CNN. "Death Penalty Fast Facts". CNN, 2018,

https://www.cnn.com/2013/07/19/us/death-penalty-fast-facts/index.html. Accessed 25 Oct 2018.