

Capital punishment has posed a division of opinion in the United States and around the world for centuries. Being that it results in the death of a human being, it is a controversial topic that touches upon issues of economics, politics, and human ethics. The United States hosting 37 states in which send convicted criminals to death row and 12 that have banned it, comes to show the divide in the country's ability to choose a definite side. But why is this? What factors weigh in not completely being for or against sending a criminal to death row? 



The retention of the death penalty in the United States has lasted over 400 years, upholding numerous cases, forms of execution, and changes in the way the system is implemented.  Having been well established throughout Europe, when arriving to America in the 1600s, Britain's method of punishment had a huge influence on the newly formed colonies. The first recorded capital punishment dates back to 1622 in Virginia, where almost all crimes, from stealing to treason, was permitted justified for capital punishment. The circumstances regarding the death penalty varied from colony to colony as it would later vary from state to state. 

The circumstances of capital punishment would change however with the start of the abolitionist movement in the early 19th centaury. Up to this point in time, close to all felonies had a mandate sentence to death. It was not until leaders such as Philadelphia Attorney William Bradford challenged the effectiveness of the death penalty, that Pennsylvania passed the law that the death penalty was only admissible for murder crimes.( http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/part-i-history-death-penalty) . Following this, states began to higher the standards required for the death penalty and eventually, began the complete abolishment of capital punishment in certain states. Although public executions and complete acceptance for the death penalty began to diminish over time, it was not until the Weems v. United States case , that the country established guidelines to avoid "Cruel and Unusual Punishment", to ensure that the punishment fit the crime.(http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.timeline.php?timelineID=000025). These guidelines were then questioned again in the pivotal case of 1972 Furman vs. Georgia, where two court justices argued the death penalty as unconstitutional. "Justice Stewart proclaimed that the decisions were randomly made as if 'being struck by lightening.' At the same time the death penalty was declared random, it was also declared discriminatory in its application". The results of the court case resonated through the country resulting in 35 states adopting new laws, the imposition of occurring death penalties, and that generalized conclusion that the death penalty must be saved those who commit the most serious of crimes.(http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/part-i-history-death-penalty). 

This of course does not eliminate the faults of capital punishment, as the lines can become blurry between states, courts, and cases. This, inevitably leads to the problems of today such as states like California and Florida being ruled by the Supreme Court as Unconstitutional. Stating, "The high court said Florida's system violated the U.S. constitutional right to a jury trial because it required the judge to independently assess the circumstances of the crime and the appropriateness of capital punishment." (Bloomberg http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/part-i-history-death-penalty)). Inconsistencies like these are still present today and continue to influence the justice system when dealing with punishing criminals. 

According to Merriam-Webster, morality is defined as, "the degree to which something is right and good". (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality). Many people, in addition to myself, view the death penalty as an immoral, inhumane and uncivilized practice. No person should be able to decide the fate of another human being.  The former director of corrections departments in both Delaware and Minnesota, Paul W. Keve , believes "the act of murder reveals a lack of respect for human life. In consequence then, we need to encourage a higher respect for life. But finally, it defies all logic to suppose that we can encourage a greater respect for human life by the device of taking a human life"  (Kasten http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=uauje).  There is no question that those who commit such atrocious crimes should be punished for their actions. It is necessary to implement justice for not only the nation but to give peace to the family of the victims. However, as stated in the article, "Protestors aim at Stopping Execution", Hartnagel recognizes the Catholic News Service, by summarizing a group of protester, many in which families of the murder victims of the death penalty, protesting "don't kill for me" and their opposition to the system. (Hartnagel). If the victim's families are not benefiting from the death penalty, then why should we? Does taking the one's life really unsure any justice at all? 

The investigation, attorney preparation, trial, appellate proceedings, and execution procedures of a capital case exceed the costs associated with a life imprisonment murder case.  Trials regarding the death penalty are never simple, and frequently require multiple years of numerous trials until the actual act of execution is implemented. Many people have a pre-disposed notion that economically the death penalty is more efficient than a life sentence. A Florida study revealed that the state spends six times as much money on a single capital case as it would to imprison a defendant until that person dies. http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=uauje 

As always, nothing is ever perfect and holes in the system can cause errors. With the enactment of the death penalty however, there is no room for error when a life is at stake. 

(Continuation of the presence of false positives and accusing the innocence. Also the presence of bias in the system)
