Fortin 1

Laura Fortin

Professor Newlon

Eng 122

9 April 2020

Argumentative Writing Experience

Anti-Death Penalty

The death penalty is enforced by the government as a punishment for criminals for their

terrible crime that ends in death. Once given the death penalty, the criminal will be put on death

row which can take a long time which they will have to go to trial to look at evidence that the

trial judge might have not seen before or if there were erros that occurred in the case or trial. The

crimes that are given the death penalty are murder, war crimes, crimes against humanity,

genocide, and treason (World Population). Some indivduals believe that a criminal should

receive the death penalty so they don’t do horrible stuff continuously and they should be made an

example of. However, the death penalty should be removed due to the violatation of the

fundamental right to life, the similarity of the death penalty to abortion, how it creates mental

health problems, and how lots of innocent people are sentenced to death due to false confessions.

In the United States, there are 30 out of 50 states that legalize the death penalty, but more

and more are beginning to let go. Our lovely state of Colorado abolished the death penalty on

March 23, 2020 (Death Penalty). The article “The Death Penalty and the Fundamental Right to

Life” states, ​"the punishment of death for the crime of murder is, under all circumstances, 'cruel

and unusual' in violation of the Eighth [Amendment]," as applied to the States by the Fourteenth
 Fortin 2

Amendment (Barry, p1551). Even though some people commit terrible crimes they should not be

put on death row. The reason for this is because they are people and it affects them and everyone

else involved with the case negatively. Criminals are not respected and are seen as objects that

just need to be thrown away due to an act that they committed. In order to demonstrate this ​Barry

explains, “A more moderate view is that dignity is not innate but must be earned; we become

worthy of dignity by acting virtuously. Obviously, the murder of another does not make one

worthy of dignity; according to some philosophers, it makes one worthy of death because it

represents a failure to act morally” (p1585). Personally, the death penalty should have been

abolished many years ago because criminals that have committed a horrific crime should not be

worthy of being sympathized but should still not deserve to die. They should remain in prison for

the rest of their lives without parole. However, some criminals that have done crimes like

robbery should have an opportunity to be let free. Overall, criminals, although they have done

wrong, should receive more respect from the community and the justice system in order to set

them back on track.

When searching for articles for this paper there was lots of discussion about supporting

and not supporting abortion and the death penalty. Abortion and the death penalty are two of the

biggest debates that people discuss and there are lots of viewpoints. Americans who are

anti-abortion are twice as likely to oppose the death penalty (Kelly et al). The article, ​Pro-life,

anti-death penalty?​ by James Kelly et al talks about abortion and capital punishment and how

attitudes of people have changed. While reading the article the author describes, “the year after

the Roe vs Wade case which claimed that fetus’ life is equal to a person that is already born;

63% of Americans supported pro-abortion. If a fetus can be supported to live then people who
 Fortin 3

are put on death row should have equal support. The offenders who have already been born and

are living their lives have chosen to commit one crime or many but they still have lives that need

to be respected and thought of. All in all, a fetus as well as a criminal are both living things that

have the right to live and should not be discriminated against just because one has seen more

years than the other.

The article ​This issue: The Psychiatrist and the Death Penalty​ by Chinmoy Gulrajani

suggests that a psychiatrist may be called to help with criminals that are given the death penalty

but it might affect the psychiatric personally if they chose this field. The reason for this is

because they can get attached to the person on death row and it would be stressful for the

psychiatrist. Being put on death row has caused lots of physical and mental stress on some

individuals. For example, Ron Williamson, in just one year his physical appearance changed so

drastically and for the worst that he was unrecognizable. He was also not treated for his mental

illness which made it worse over the years. For the criminals sake, they should have an

accessible therapist that they can talk to, and that they can try and help them and talk with them

about what they did. This can help some that suffer from mental illness and what are the possible

next steps for that individual.

In 1997, the rape and murder of a Navy sailor’s wife shook Virginia. Four Navy sails

falsely confessed to the crime and 20 years later they were found innocent in the trial

(Morehouse). Danial Williams, one of the innocent men that were falsely accused said, “that the

lead detective treated him like a criminal, yelled in his face, called him a liar, and said that a

witness saw him go into the victim’s apartment” (Morehouse). All four of the men were put on

death row even though they were innocent. False confession can be one of the leading causes of
 Fortin 4

wrongful convictions since the juries are most convinced by the confessions alone even though

some are not even significant (Morehouse). In some cases, officers will even threaten a suspect

of the death penalty. Morehouse demonstrates, “that it is impossible to know how being threaten

with the death penalty affects the mind of a person”. This could make the person cave and falsely

confess which is something that can not be tolerated. To combat this, officers should be watched

and restricted by how they handle suspects in a case so people are not being accused of

something that they did not do. Unfortunately, the justice system is very corrupt and very little

people don’t know how to decrease innocent people being put in jail or being on death row.

Possible solutions are, spreading awareness about these poor innocent people that suffer due to

our corrupt justice system, make sure that there are certain questions that officers must ask and

can’t go beyond them with higher power consent, and make sure there are cameras that are

recording the whole time that can never be deleted or touched by anyone. However, the

oppenents who argue for the death penalty will have a lot to say as well. In conclusion, the death

penalty should be disentigrated because it leads to innocent men losing their lives due to the

pressures of the justice system.

In the eyes of the opponent the death penalty should be legal due to the future

dangerousness issue. In Texas, the jury is asked to predict the future dangers of the criminals

based on their crimes. To show this, Clary alludes, “To secure a "yes" response to the Future

Dangerousness Issue, the prosecution bears the burden of proving "beyond a reasonable doubt

that there is a probability that [the defendant] would commit criminal acts of violence in the

future, so as to constitute a continuing threat, whether in or out of prison”. To make sure that the

jury is fair about future dangerousness they must respond to the future dangerousness with a
 Fortin 5

“yes”, “no” and “shall consider”. The death penalty can also be closure for the family that lost a

loved one because it ensures that the criminal will not hurt or kill another indivdual and get what

they deserved. This argument is wrong because the death penalty is a dreadful experience for

someone to live through and it is inhumane to kill another person. The Future Dangerousness

Issue sounds biased and becomes corrupted depending on the people on the jury. In the end, the

Future Dangerousness Issue should be watched with caution because it could lead to further

corruption of the juries.

The death penalty has been a hot debate about if it should be abolished or not. Some

believe that a criminal should receive the death penalty so they do not do horrible stuff

continuously. People have tried The Future Dangerousness Issue which, through context, has

proven itself to be very unreliable and could further lead to problems. Many people think that the

death penalty should be abolished because it violates the fundamental right to life, it creates

mental health problems which should be treated, and lots of innocent people are sentenced to

death due to false confessions. Unfortunately, justice is corrupt and there is no chance of

changing it and false confessions are one of the major things that put innocent men in prison and

death row. Abortion is similar to the death penalty because it is another topic that is hugely

debated. In conclusion, many believe that the death penalty should be abolished and should give

these criminals a chance at life rather than being cast asside as trash from the government.
 Fortin 6

Works Cited

Barry, Kevin M. "The Death Penalty and the Fundamental Right to Life."​ Boston College.Law

School.Boston College Law Review​, vol. 60, no. 6, 2019, pp. 1545-1604,1545A​.

ProQuest​,

https://arapahoecc.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.arapahoecc.idm.oc

lc.org/docview/2288645640?accountid=39001​. Accessed 22 April, 2020.

Clary, Robert. "Texas's capital-sentencing procedure has a Simmons problem: its gag statute and

12-10 rule distort the jury's assessment of the defendant's 'future dangerousness'."

American Criminal Law Review​, vol. 54, no. 1, Winter 2017, p. 57+. ​Gale In Context:

Opposing Viewpoints​,

https://link-gale-com.arapahoecc.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/A489256665/OVIC?u=apcc&sid

=OVIC&xid=7d6a026e. Accessed 27 Apr. 2020.

“Death Penalty States 2020.” Death Penalty States 2020, World Population, 2020,

worldpopulationreview.com/states/death-penalty-states/. Accessed 22 April, 2020.

Gulrajani, Chinmoy. "This Issue: The Psychiatrist and the Death Penalty."​ Psychiatric Annals​,

vol. 45, no. 12, 2015, pp. 593-594​. ProQuest,​

https://arapahoecc.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.arapahoecc.idm.oc

lc.org/docview/1747595427?accountid=39001,

doi:​http://dx.doi.org.arapahoecc.idm.oclc.org/10.3928/00485713-20151104-01​. Accessed

22 April, 2020.

Kelly, James R., and Christopher Kudlac. "Pro-Life, Anti-Death Penalty?"​ America​, vol. 182, no.

11, Apr 01, 2000, pp. 6-8​. ProQuest,​

 Fortin 7

https://arapahoecc.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.arapahoecc.idm.oc

lc.org/docview/209679491?accountid=39001​. Accessed 22 April 2020.

Morehouse, Lauren. " CONFESS OR DIE: WHY THREATENING A SUSPECT WITH

THE DEATH PENALTY SHOULD RENDER CONFESSIONS INVOLUNTARY.

American Criminal Law Review​, vol. 56, no. 2, 2019, p. 531+. Gale In Context:

Opposing Viewpoints, https://link-gale-

com.arapahoecc.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/A584328686/OVIC?u=apcc&sid=OVIC&a

mp;xid=30b2b695. Accessed 22 Apr. 2020.