In the United States the criminal justice system is built on the ideal that every defendant receive a fair trial. While mistakes are bound to occur in every system, there are some punishments that cannot be remedied. Of all the punishments used in the criminal justice system the death penalty is the most irreversible. Capital punishment has been used around the world since 1700 B.C. and since then the methods of executions have changed, as well as the countries that permit this type of punishment. The U.S. has always maintained capital punishment, at least in some states, and although there have been attempts to improve the death penalty and provide justice; there are still issues with the use of the death penalty. Due to the unfair and unjust manor the death penalty is administered in the legal system, the United States needs to abolish the capital punishment and replace it with life without parole. 

In 1972 the United States Supreme Court ruled in Furman v. Georgia that the death penalty was being administered arbitrarily and resulted in cruel and unusual punishment, as a result of this decision the states ceased all executions. However, in 1976 the U.S. Supreme Court re-instated the death penalty after the states revised their statutes in an attempt to implement the death penalty in a fair and consistent manor (Dieter 3). Despite the changes, there are problems with the death penalty that have continued to persist and can lead to injustice. One of the irregularities of the death penalty is certain counties in the U.S. use the death penalty more frequently than others. Audrey Kobayashi, a professor of geography at Queens University, wrote an article, "Justice versus justice: Geographies of the Death Penalty and Place-Based Activism in the Troy Davis Case", she discusses the geographic disparities that occur with the use of capital punishment. Her article notes, "Since 1976, just 15 counties accounted for a third of all executions"(Kobayashi 1121). The fact that where a defendant's trial is held may determine the likelihood of them being charged with the death penalty is problematic because it proves how inconsistently and unequally the death penalty is imposed. Due to the severity of the punishment, the decision to impose the death penalty needs to be decided systematically and not on the whim of the prosecution in a particular court. While the greatest differences occur at county levels, states also vary with how often they use the death penalty. Since 1977 there have been 1,383 death penalty executions, the state of Texas accounts for the greatest number of them with a total of 508 (Kobayashi 1120). Although, certain states carry out more executions and death sentences than others, many of those states are in a particular area of the country. Richard Dieter, previous director for The Death Penalty Information Center wrote a report entitled, "Struck by Lightning: The Continuing Arbitrariness of the Death Penalty, Thirty-Five Years After Its Re-Instatement in 1976". This report describes the issues that have continued to arise even after the death penalty was revised in 1976. The report finds that, "Eight-two percent of the country's executions occur in the South"(Dieter 23). Thirty-one states currently have the death penalty and while that may cause some of the demographics to be skewed, the fact that over three quarters of all executions happen in the South proves how unequally the death penalty is enforced throughout the country. A defendant's fate at trial should not be impacted by what county, state or region their trial is held in. The geographic disparities show the death penalty is not consistently administered across the country. If the courts cannot impose the death penalty in an equal and fair manor, it should no longer be a form of punishment in our legal system. 

As I previously pointed out, the frequency of imposing the death penalty differs across the country but another aspect that varies is the appeals process of death penalty cases. Richard Dieter's report further explains how states vary on decisions regarding appeals in death penalty cases. For example, since 2009, Pennsylvania has reversed 124 death sentences on appeal, 95% of the time when these cases were tried again, the defendant was given a life sentence or less (Dieter 9). There is a disparity of appeals in capital cases because in certain states, reversals are very rare. Dieter uses Virginia's low reversal rate as an example, "Between 1973 and 1995, the Virginia Supreme Court overturned only 10% of the death penalty sentences reviewed, compared to a national reversal rate of 41%" (Dieter 8). Virginia's low reversal rate may also lead to more executions and contribute to their high execution rate of around 70%, which is much higher than the national average of 15% (Dieter 9). The appeals process plays a vital role in determining if a death penalty conviction prevails and there are large differences amongst states. 

In a death penalty case, it is imperative that a defendant receive a fair trial but also an equal chance for their decision to be reversed on an appeal. In the past many people have disputed that capital punishment defendants do not receive proper legal representation during the trial and appeals process. Even those who argue for the continuation of the death penalty agree on this point. John C. Kissinger Jr. has worked as a prosecution attorney and is also a judge in the Cheshire County Superior Court, he supports the death penalty but says, "To make sure the application of the statute is as fair as possible, the state must also continue to provide the resources necessary to ensure that all defendants faced with a capital crime are provided highly competent and trained defense counsel" ("Capital Punishment Should Be Maintained" par. 6). David R. Drow has been a defense lawyer for over twenty years and has defended over one hundred death row inmates. Drow gave a Ted Talk on the death penalty and mentioned that there has been a recent drop in death sentences in Texas, he explains, "The reason that this has happened is because death penalty lawyers have understood that the earlier you intervene in a case, the greater the likelihood that you're going to save your client's life" (Drow 7:55). Drow emphasizes the significance of the appeals process in helping a defendant obtain a sentence less than death and he highlights the importance of when a defense lawyer interjects in a case. It is important that no matter where a defendant is in the country they receive a fair chance to be granted an appeal. The difference of reversal rates and appeals in the country proves that a defendant may or may not have their decision reversed or lessened because of where their case takes place. Another point that was made in the "Struck by lightning" report is that, "Eight-two percent of the country's executions occur in the South"(Dieter). While I do understand that there are thirty-one states that currently have the death penalty and that may cause some of the demographics to be skewed, the fact that over three quarters of all executions happen in the south helps to demonstrate how unequally the death penalty is enforced throughout the country.  If every defendant is not given an equal chance to have his or her decision reversed, then it is unconscionable to continue the death penalty's use.  

As I mentioned, the appeals process is crucial in a capital case, but that process is also part of what accounts for the expensive costs of the death penalty. One of the largest misconceptions the public makes regarding capital punishment is that the costs of life without parole is less than executing a defendant. Jolie McLaughlin wrote a paper for the Northwestern University School of Law and discusses the impact of costs on the government in regards to the death penalty. She cites an example to support her claim; "A 2008 study found that Maryland spent $186 million more on capital cases over the past two decades than it would have spent if the state did not have the death penalty"(McLaughlin11). Many states and legislators are now taking into account the expensiveness of using the death penalty (McLaughlin11). The reason the death penalty is more expensive than life without parole is not the costs of carrying out the execution itself, but the costs of a capital punishment prosecution in terms of the trial and appeals process and the cost for lawyers. Also, death row inmates often have their own cells and are given more security, making them more expensive to incarcerate. The Economist reports that the average time spent on death row for an inmate is about sixteen and a half years ("Why so many death row inmates in America will die of old age" par. 2). This amount of time would result in greater costs overtime compared to inmates sentenced to life without parole ("Why so many death row inmates in America will die of old age" par. 2). A Time magazine article reports that a study done at Duke University found that North Carolina could save $11 million per year by foregoing the use of the death penalty (Drehle 14). The majority of studies demonstrate that states would spend less money if they imposed life sentences without parole instead of the death penalty (McLaughlin 7). Although I do not believe the criminal justice system should forego the death penalty just to save money, given the fact that the way it is enforced is unfair and does not guarantee justice to the defendant, the extra costs are not worth it. The costs, along with the injustice associated with the death penalty are yet again why capital punishment should no longer be an option in our criminal justice system. 

Every defendant has the right to receive a fair trial, which is why one of the most problematic uses of the death penalty is the role race may play in a jury's decision regarding whether or not a defendant is sentenced to death. Michael L. Radelet and Marian J. Borg co-wrote "The Changing Nature of Death Penalty Debates" to explain how the argument surrounding the death penalty has changed over the years. The article references a famous Supreme Court case, McCleskey v. Kemp that took place in 1987. David Baldus was a professor of law at the University of Iowa, he and his colleagues performed a study in Georgia in the 1970's and 1980's. Their study controlled for 230 variables and found that the odds of receiving a death sentence for defendants who kill whites in Georgia is 4.3 times higher than for those who kill blacks (Radelet 48). A Georgia death row inmate named Warren McCleskey and his attorneys claimed that these findings showed unfair racial bias in the administration of the death penalty in Georgia and took the evidence to the Supreme Court in McCleskey v. Kemp (Radelet 48). The Supreme Court ruled that the statistical pattern found did not prove any bias in McCleskey's individual case (Radelet 48). The court also ruled that the evidence of racial discrimination in capital sentencing did not violate the Eighth or Fourteenth amendment (McLaughlin 6). Despite the ruling in McCleskey v. Kemp, there have been multiple findings of racial bias involved with the death penalty. Dieter's "Struck by Lightning" report cites a statistical study done at the University of North Carolina that found that prosecutors in South Carolina were more likely to seek the death penalty when the victim of the underlying murder was white or female (Dieter 21). The race of the defendant or the victim should have no bearing on whether or not a defendant is charged with the death penalty. The impact race may play once again exemplifies how the death penalty is unfairly enforced. If the criminal justice system is unable to predict or account for the jury's bias or the court's bias regarding race, the result could lead to injustice, therefore the death penalty should no longer be used and should be replaced with life without parole. 

The role that race may play in a defendant's trial is just one of the many ways in which the death penalty is unfair. Unfairness is one of the main issues the American public has when supporting the death penalty. In his report, Richard Dieter notes that a 2010 survey of registered voters reported that respondents rated unfairness as a top reason to use life without parole instead of the death penalty (Dieter 19). Although many Americans find arbitrariness to be an issue, according to the 2015-year end report from The Death Penalty Information Center, a Gallup poll and the Pew Research Center both found between 56 and 61 percent of responders support the death penalty (The Death Penalty in 2015 5). Many death penalty supporters believe the punishment is justified from a morality standpoint. Alex Kozinski was a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where he served for twenty-nine years; he was also the chief judge in that court for seven years. Judge Kozinski supports the death penalty in terms of morality and states, "I am not opposed to the death penalty, some people simply deserve to die" (Morrison par. 9). He is not the only judge who thinks that, Judge John C. Kissinger Jr. also supports the death penalty when it comes to morality, "It is my belief that in very limited circumstances the death penalty represents appropriate punishment" ("Capital Punishment Should Be Maintained" par. 1). Many people who support the death penalty believe that sometimes the punishment should fit the crime and in certain instances, morally, the death penalty is justified. However, the unjust and inconsistent manor that capital punishment is currently imposed geographically, and the role that race may play is problematic in its administration. For these reasons I believe the death penalty needs to be replaced with life without parole because from a legal standpoint, it cannot justified. 

Although the criminal justice system is prone to make mistakes, gambling a person's life is too big of a risk. It is inevitable that sometimes the prosecution or the jury may convict the wrong person of committing a crime, and in most cases they remedy the incorrect decision by freeing the person from confinement or the sanctions they chose to impose. However, with the death penalty, once a defendant is executed if they are later found to be innocent there is no way to correct this mistake. David Von Drehle is an editor-at-large for Time magazine and wrote an article focusing on the debate of the death penalty. He gives an example from a Texas case where inadequate investigators who used discredited science put two men on death row for the charges of alleged arson murders (Drehle 8). One of the defendants, Ernest Willis was released in 2004 when his lawyers compiled a review conducted by a fire scientist who concluded that the fire was not the cause of either of the suspects (Drehle 8). Unfortunately though, the other suspect Cameron Todd, had already been executed (Drehle 8). Because this information was discovered too late Texas may have killed an innocent man. In this case, the court of Texas has no way to rectify their actions aside from apologizing to the defendant's family. The Death Penalty Information Center released a report detailing death penalty statistics for the year 2015 and this year, "Six more people who had been on death row were exonerated of all charges, bringing to 156 the number of death-sentenced men and women exonerated since 1973" (The Death Penalty in 2015 8). Although the fact that these men and women were released prior to their execution is encouraging, nevertheless, if the mistake had not been discovered the result could have been another instance where an innocent person was executed. The inconsistent use of the death penalty is problematic in the court system but the fact that if a mistake is made an innocent person will be killed poses too high of a risk, which is why the death penalty needs to be banned. 

Another issue of killing death row inmates is the way executions are being carried out. Overtime the way executions are conducted has changed but the most commonly used method today is lethal injection. Although this was thought to be a more humane way to execute death row inmates, as with all the other methods of execution, some problems have arisen that call into question that notion. In 1977 an Oklahoma medical examiner, Jay Chapman comprised a three-drug combination for executions, the first drug administered was typically sodium thiopental used to anesthetize the defendant being executed (Segura par. 28). The second drug used was pancuronium bromide to cause paralysis of the muscles, including those needed for respiration; the third drug was potassium chloride to stop the heart (Segura par. 28). The pancuronium bromide helped conceal any signs of what was happening with the prisoner's bodies (Segura par. 29). The problem with the use of the paralytic was if the anesthetic did not work the prisoner would still experience pain but would be unable to tell anyone and they would suffocate and enter cardiac arrest (Segura par. 29). The use of pancuronium bromide is now debated because many people believe it only serves the purpose of making the execution appear more peaceful (Segura par. 29). A Huffington Post article quotes Teresa Zimmers, a molecular biologist at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine who said in regards to lethal injection, "Part of the paradox is that it looks like a medical procedure but it hasn't been rigorously tested" (Lavender par. 21). She elaborates on the lack of testing, "There are no controlled trials, analysis or peer review of the processes to determine whether it works the way it's been said to work" (Lavender par. 21). In one execution that occurred in Oklahoma in January of 2014 the prisoner, Michael Lee Wilson, said to prison officials, "I feel my whole body burning" (Lavender par. 23). There have been multiple occurrences of inmates experiencing pain during executions using lethal injection which proves that although it may seem painless, that is not always the case. Another problem with lethal injection is in 2011 the primary American manufacturer of the anesthetic, sodium thiopental, said they would no longer produce it ("The slow death of the death penalty" par. 15). Also, European producers are prohibited from exporting the drug to the U.S. for the purpose of executions. The lack of availability of this particular drug has caused many states to resort to other, sometimes unapproved or unregulated drug combinations to carry out executions ("The slow death of the death penalty" par. 16). A Washington Post article references death row inmate Dennis McGuire who was executed in the state of Ohio using the drugs midazolam and hydromorphone (Segura par. 16). The article reported that McGuire had, "Repeated cycles of snorting, gurgling and arching his back and appeared to writhe in pain" (Segura par.16). The article reports that the state might have known the risk of administering these untested drugs and continued with the execution anyway (Segura par. 16). Death row inmates are human beings and should not be subjected to untested methods of execution where the effects of the drugs being used are unknown. Carrying out the death penalty has proven to be difficult in and of itself. If the states are not capable of carrying out an execution that is not botched, then the death penalty should not be allowed because it violates the Eighth amendment and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. The challenge of carrying out executions without complications is another reason why it is unfair to continue using the death penalty as a form of punishment. 

The arbitrariness and legal issues that arise from the death penalty, along with the problems of finding a humane solution for executions are only some of the many reasons why the death penalty needs to be abolished. The public support for the death penalty has continuously fallen over the past twenty to thirty years and will continue to fall as people realize that its cruel and outdated nature has no place in our modern criminal justice system. The public needs to advocate for life without parole in replace of the death penalty. If this does not occur, defendants will continue to fall victim to an unjust system and in certain cases an innocent person will be executed for a crime they did not commit. The only way to prevent this injustice from continuing is for Americans to support the abolition of the death penalty in the United States. 

