The death penalty is a brutal and unusual punishment. The death penalty, sometimes referred to as capital punishment, is defined as one human being taking the life of another via lethal injection. Lethal injection is now currently the primary approach used to care out the death penalty in the United States. The idea of putting another human being to death is hard to ultimately fathom. In today's society it has become socially expectable to come up with excuses as to why it is tolerable to kill people of our own kind. The physical mechanics behind this type of act of execution are easy to grasp, but the emotions involved in carrying out a death sentence on another individual, mindless of how much they deserve it, is far from understanding. Much of the controversy pertains to individuals who believe that the death penalty is favorable because it scares people away from committing a crime that could get them killed. Another thing is that this type of arrangement has many weaknesses and frailty in the system. This type of setup repeatedly sends innocent people who are wrongly accused to death row and eventually executed. It is also a concern that the actual crime committed is not the only reason individuals are being sentenced to death row. Individuals race, occupation, class, wealth and representative power all seem to play a role when this system is put into action. Additionally, it is discussed that the death penalty is not supported by the constitution. Opposing the death penalty has four primary controversies.

The first of these controversies pertains to the argue that the death penalty does or does not deters murder. Throughout history it can be seen that the government has always used punishment to discourage criminals from unlawful actions. The word "punishment" does not necessary need to mean "kill" and our society needs to understand there are other ways to punishment criminals. An overwhelming majority of the United States population, eighty-eight percent, do not believe that the death penalty has a direct correlation to reducing violent crimes ("5 Arguments Against the Death Penalty"). This shows that the death penalty is becoming less favorable due to the fact that it is not actually proven to deter murders. In North Carolina alone, "the number of death sentences has been declining for years" and "the state murder rate has declined in the years since executions have stopped" which shows that there is no credible argument that the death penalty deters crime ("Failure to Deter Crime"). Most individuals on death row did not plan out their crimes, which is first degree, but instead committed their crimes in the heat of the moment, under the influence, or while suffering from mental illness, which is second degree. Explaining that most of these incidence is considered second degree crimes, shows that the individuals who are committing such acts are not taking into account what consequence they could be faced with while in the action of the crime. 

Supporters the death penalty believe that "individuals make [their] decisions based on the net costs and benefits of each alternative [crime]" no matter the circumstance (Muhlhausen). The type of people who commit second degree crimes represent a group that is highly unlikely to make a reasonable decision, such as contemplating future consequences for their actions. This representation shows that practicing the death penalty as an example for future criminals is ineffective and will not get the point across. Given the uncertainty about the death penalty's effect on crime, it is important to consider whether or not there is a deterrent effect of sentences such as life imprisonment. There are reasons to believe that criminals would change their behaviors to avoid the risk of execution. Killers might not be in the state of mind to accurately evaluate their chances of being captured, testified and put to death. 

There are many opportunities for mismanagement. The death penalty is unethical in its performance.  In recent years, lethal injection is being administered inaccurately. Executions are becoming problematic and they are more wrong than ever. In the United States, because of the high drug shortage, inmates are being injected with unsafe drugs that are causing the executions to be performed improperly. Joseph Wood, who was convicted of double murder in 1989, but not sentenced to the death penalty until 2014, was given an untested combination of midazolam and hydromorphone which made his execution last so long that his lawyers were able to file an appeal while his execution took place. The executioners stopped the process and he then died of a heart attack (Crair). Many states today "use a combination of barbituric, paralytic and toxic agents for executions" although there is no confirmation supporting its effectiveness (Gissespie). It is also shown that the minorities are more likely to be given the death penalty. There is a large concern that the actual crime committed is not the only reason people are being sentenced to death. Occupation, class, and wealth all seem to play a role when these combinations have a factor on the outcome of a criminal justice case. Not only do these things effect the cases bias but first and foremost, they can effect one's lawyer who ultimately holds the power to sway court room decisions. The quality of a representative that the criminal obtains can determine many things throughout the case. Almost all defendants in capital cases do not have the means for their own attorney and frequently the appointed attorneys are "overworked, underpaid or lack trail experience" for death penalty cases ("Death Penalty Representation"). In some occasions, "lawyers appointed to a death case were so inexperienced that they were completely unprepared for the sentencing phase of the trail" which really caused problems in their defeasance case ("Death Penalty Representation"). The race of the victim and the race of the defendant are also considerable aspects in determining who is sentenced to be put to death in this country. According to a report from Russ Feingold, "82 percent of the studies [reviewed], race of the victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e. those who murdered whites were more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks " ("Racial Disparities"). It is frequently stated that the criminal justice system has been in the past, and remains today, racially discriminatory and there has been "research indicating more severe sentencing of black criminal defendants than white defendants, especially in imposition of the death penalty" (Kleck 791).

The danger that innocent people will be executed because of flaws in the system are getting worse.  A total of "69 people have been released from death row since 1973" after evidence of their innocence emerged (Dieter). Many of the recent cases where inmates were released from death row were discovered because of new techniques, more in-depth investigations and the dedicated work of expert attorneys, not because of the routine appeal process ("The Facts: 13 Reasons"). Although it seems that many of these cases are able to prove innocence before the suspect is put to death, there are also many cases that are too late. According to The Slate a study concluded that "4.1 percent, or one-in-25 criminal defendants" who have already been or will be sentence to the death penalty, are innocent (Hannon). As an example, Troy Davis was accused of killing an officer after being seen attack a homeless man with a group of other men. There was no evidence that linked Davis to the murder but nine of the witnesses testified against him. Later, seven of the nine witnesses contradicted their prior testimony because they said they were previously threatened to accuse Davis of the murder. The case continued after the execution of Davis and the court ruled in favor of Davis being an innocent man (Baude 19). This is a concept of actual innocence that shows the risk of the death penalty on victim who may be innocent. The extent of judicial power in the United States as well as the role of the legislature in drawing those limits come into play in a death penalty case. 

Individuals who support the death penalty may say that perfect accuracy is not the goal of the criminal justice system. If an error does occur in the death penalty, and an innocent person is executed, supporters of the death penalty would say that the problem lies in the court system, not in the death penalty itself. Even though the problem may start with the court system, no matter what happens, the same problem ends with an innocent person getting executed, which is unethical. Although most do not think about it, many of our activities in our world that humans are involved in everyday, such as driving a car, acquires a possibility of injury or death. Driving a car continues to take place every day, and continues to occasionally take individuals lives, because as a society we have settled to take that liability. Our society has also decided that the advantages of having hazardous murderers withdrawn from our population outweigh the losses of the offenders. This does not mean that there cannot be a significant change to this system. Everyday there are many changes to decrease the chance of human beings being killed in a car accidence and there can also be changes to our court system to decrease the number of innocent people killed. The types of changes that would need to be seen would consist of equal opportunity towards all individuals from our criminal justice system.

The death penalty tampers with the constitutional ban in opposition to cruel and unusual punishment and equal security under the law. The death penalty is a painful denial of civil liberties and is inconsistent with the fundamental morals of our democratic frame of reference (Bedau). Many people in the United States have attempted to place the death penalty with the Constitution's original understanding or state that its reason to be involved must be per case. Constitutional interpretation is "based solely upon the plain meaning of the words within the text as they are commonly defined and "it cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect"" (Marbury v. Madison 174, qtd. in Boys 111). A few concerns that come from this is that, as stated before, the death penalty system is an unfair and unjust manner against the people and innocent people are too often sentence to death. Even though the cruel and unusual disciplinary action clause of the eighth amendment is precisely in point, "legislative and executive policy makers seem to feel that their role is not to make their own constitutional interpretations, but to look to the courts" instead (Goldberg 1776). It is still up for debate whether or not the eighth amendment gives refuge against the death penalty since the death penalty has not yet been determined as "cruel" discipline. In the United States, when it comes to certain matters, it seems that governmental authorities strive to suppress the truth from the majority of the citizens. It was stated that in Florida, "the Legislature has refused for years to address the law's constitutional frailties" in death row court room verdicts (Alvarez). This displays that Florida's death penalty system rewarded too much power to judges and not an adequate amount to the juries, which is just one illustration of a corrupt court system. Since there was such a violation during many cases, this incident could significantly change sentencing in a state with one of the nation's most crowded death rows (Alanez).

In our world today there is no way to completely get rid of the death penalty without having an alternative solution for the many criminals originating each day. Since there is no possible solution for the discontinuation of crime, the next best option is life imprisonment to stop such crimes. The question becomes, which is a better solution: the death penalty or life imprisonment? It needs to be remembered that criminals are human beings too, who have the right to self-correction through rehabilitation. No matter who the criminal was in the past or who they are after the crime, there is always still room for change. As discussed before, our criminal justice system is damaged and mishandled, therefore abusing the death penalty. Another thing that was previously mentioned was that the death penalty is irreversible and the action that takes place can never be taken back. The death penalty cost more, delivers less, and puts innocent lives at risk. Life imprisonment "provides justice to survivors or murder victims and allows more resources to be invested into solving other murders and preventing violence" while being the utmost practical solution (Vogel 270). Part of the supporters of the death penalty see life imprisonment as too kind of a punishment but they do not account for the fact that guilt and suffrage can be the worst punishment of all. The controversy that most of these supports make is that the threat of execution influences criminal behavior more effectively than imprisonment is capable of doing. Although there are many other alternatives as to what can happen to these criminals, and often times, being sentenced to a life with nothing but prison walls can be the worst punishment of all. As most people have probably experienced, when a loved one passes away, it hurts the survivors who have to live without them, maybe even more so than the victim of the death penalty who gets to cease to exist without having to live with a guiltily conscience. The type of people committing crimes that call for the death penalty seem to portray their character as someone who would find the death penalty as an easy way out. Instead of giving these human beings an effortless way to end things, they should be given something that will challenge them think twice about who they really are and what they have unquestionably done. Rather than using the death penalty as revenge, as a society, individuals needs to stop looking for revenge but instead correct these criminals to better the life for not only ourselves but for the immoral persons who would committee such crime. Punishment for those who commit major crimes should result in life imprisonment.

The sentence of the death penalty is an unconstitutional, risky, unfair, alternative way to punish criminals. Where does the killing stop once it has begun? Murder is a reality that is unaccepted by society, yet many people seem to justify the death penalty by killing criminals, although, that can be expressed as murder also. Sentencing an individual to death row does not settle the questioning that is left behind after the prosecution. The criminal will no longer have to pay for the consequence of their actions in the grand scheme of things.  The government does not have the lawful right to end a person's life or say when it should be ended. The death penalty is not supported by the constitution, it is unequal, it is not carried out accurately, and there is no verification that it discourages crime. The death penalty is a ruthless and unremarkable discipline that should no more be inflicted on any human beings.

