The need for Capital Punishment in the USA, and countries like it, has been a debatable topic for many years. There are usually only two sides to the argument: keep Capital Punishment or abolish Capital Punishment. The truth is, the need for Capital Punishment is now nonexistent. In fact, the USA is one of the only first world countries to still have capital punishment in affect (Abolitionist and Retentionist Countries).  America holds about 25% of the world’s inmates, but doesn’t even contribute to 5% of the world’s population (Drummond), so it is obvious that capital punishment is not working. Capital punishment has been with the U.S since 1608 when a general was hanged for espionage. Since then, states in America have altered their death penalty laws, but have never abolished it. Since the 1940’s, executions have reduced dramatically, and even ceased from 1970-1980, but the rates of executions in America are still incredibly high for a G8 country (Archibald 15-19). As capital punishment has evolved in the U.S, deciding whether or not a crime is punishable by death has gotten more complicated for Supreme court. Archibald states, “The Supreme Court has weighed in on a variety of issues involving the death penalty. The Court’s rulings have been anything but consistent, a fact which has led to the increasingly arbitrary manner in which capital punishment is implemented.” Additionally, some death row inmates have criticized the death penalty, and stated that is comes into conflict with their eighth amendment right (Archibald 24), so correctly implementing this form of punishment is becoming more legally concerning for all involved. The better alternative to Capital Punishment, would be Life sentencing without parole for a countless amount of reasons. Capital Punishment can no longer be a criminal sentence due to the economic downfalls, social injustice, wrongful convictions, question of constitutionality, and illogical reasoning that follows it.

It is assumed by many citizens that the cost of a life sentence would be much more than the cost of sentencing someone to Capital punishment, but a California study proves this otherwise (5 reasons…). When factoring in adjudication and prison cost for a life sentence compared to the death penalty, the average cost of sentencing someone to capital punishment is $3 million, whereas a life sentence is only averaged around $1.2 million (The State of Capital Punishment). Archibald states that it could costs taxpayers up to $1.5 million to cover a capital punishment case alone and even more if the defendant cannot afford their own attorney. She also claims that if the costs cannot be covered by taxpayer money, the money will be taken from other social programs’ budget to pay for the case(Archibald). Our country is already in debt and sentencing these criminals to Capital Punishment is not helping that. The cost of keeping the death penalty in affect is simply too high, so if there is a cheaper alternative, it needs to be taken. It also does not seem logical to take money out of more needed social programs, like education and town parks, just to kill a criminal. Life sentencing is a much more beneficial sentence when it comes to the taxpayers and those who benefit from social programs, rather than Capital Punishment. 

Victims of social injustice are not only discriminated against in everyday life, but are even more so discriminated in the criminal justice system. Stubbs states, “We know there is a strong link between race and who ends up on death row: studies across the country have repeatedly documented that Black people convicted of killing white people are far more likely to be sentenced to death than white people convicted of killing black people.” In fact, 76% of death row exonerees were wrongly convicted of murdering white victims (Stubbs). It is easily justified that not all people in power of determining whether Capital punishment is suitable are completely pure of any and all social stereotypes. Archibald quotes that there are several problems of social inequality within the justice system and quotes “death row inmates represent a cognizable class of persons.” This inequality and social injustice can lead to many false convictions based primarily on stereotype, and less and on evidence. Archibald also claims that crime statistics has not only affected the justice system, but the lives of everyday American citizens. These worrisome citizens then pressure policy makers into implementing sometimes prejudicial legislature that can disproportionately affect poor minority groups (Archibald). Archibald also implies that not only race and poverty play a role in this social injustice, but so does education and exonerations. Now that it seems criminals all have the same demographics, it makes it easier for a police officer to pull a bystander with similar demographics and make him a suspect. Many of these people can be falsely convicted of crimes they never did or never would commit because they come from background that is suspected to do so. Some men and women will spend years in prison awaiting their capital punishment before finally being proven innocent, whereas some are not as lucky and receive their sentence before being proven innocent. For those who are able to be cleared before given the death penalty, living what life they have left can be even more difficult than before. Bever writes about a man who was wrongfully convicted and spent many years behind bars but never received any sort of compensation for his time. After he was released he struggled to find a decent job since he had an arrest for murder following him on his record and instead had to settle for a labor-intensive job. He also missed out on his daughter’s childhood who was an infant when he was arrested and an adult by the time he was released (Bever). Not only is there correlation between conviction and social standings, but there is also correlation between sentencing and social standings; “it is not the depravity or gravity of the crime that most often determines the punishment, but rather “geography, race, gender, and access to adequate counsel”” (Archibald). Archibald goes on to quote Jeffrey Reiman saying that the criminal justice system weeds out the bad from the bad depending on social status. He states,                                    

          “the system does this first by considering what acts are to be criminal and what penalties            meet each of those crimes; however, the same criminal justice system also continues to create   exceptions for the wealthy by continuing to incarcerate and prosecute those from the lower classes. At each step, from arresting to sentencing, the likelihood of being ignored or released or treated lightly by the system is greater the better off one is economically. In the end, the image of jails and prisons are unrepresentative of the true nature of crime and punishment in America, since the poor are more likely to be treated harshly at each stage of the prosecutorial system than their middle- and upper-class counterparts. As a result, it is not that poor people commit more crimes, but that poor people are more likely to be punished more severely” (Archibald). 

The social injustice that runs throughout the justice system is too high to still have the death penalty as an option for sentencing. There is no true way to eliminate all social stereotypes, so there can be no opportunity for the system to take an innocent life. 

 Many people question the death penalty and how it withholds constitutionally. Emily Bazelon claims, “The Supreme Court has been trying for more than 40 years to write rules that can fairly determine which murderers live and die.” If the Supreme court can be so indecisive for over 40 years on which murders and crimes are death worthy, then there should be no Capital punishment at all. Not only is it a question of which crimes should be deemed death or life sentence, but it also deals with whether or not it breaks the Eighth Amendment rights, the prohibition of excessive bail, fines, and cruel or unusual punishments set forth by the government. Some could argue that if someone is violent and immune enough to commit such a crime, then they shouldn’t have any right to any amendments, but it is the Supreme courts job to reinforce the constitution and how it applies to all American citizens. Justice Stephen Breyer had constant debate over whether the death penalty has proved too unfair and racially discriminatory to continue and claims “that the constitutional infirmities in the death penalty could be healed.”, but argues supreme court knows otherwise, “Almost 40 years of studies, surveys, and experience strongly indicate, however, that this effort has failed” (Bazelon). Supreme court knows that there is no way in systematically determining which types of crimes deserve a death sentence or a life sentence. Without guidelines in place some criminals could be punished by death after committing the same crimes as someone who is serving a life sentence. “The justice system is riddled with flaws, influencing the fates of countless defendants”, which can make a Supreme court decision much less constitutional than it was originally designed to be (Bazelon). 

There is definitely no doubt that capital punishment can make a safer environment for the country. David Muhlhausen states, “Capital Punishment curbs criminal behavior and promotes a safer country.” The death penalty permanently keeps murderers and very dangerous people from committing those same crimes again. Muhlhausen is an avid supporter of the Death penalty and feels it’s morally justified to kill someone who has committed extremely heinous crimes. But Muhlhausen also states. “Capital Punishment does in fact, save lives… However, the criminal process should not be abused to prevent the lawful imposition of the death penalty in capital cases.”  It is because of this imposition that Capital punishment can no longer exist. The death penalty is an effective solution, if the court is 100% sure the defendant committed the crime, but there is no way to be 100% sure under any circumstances. Brian Evans reports, “The U.S was the only country in the Western Hemisphere or the G8 to kill its prisoners, and was responsible for the fifth most known executions in the world, behind China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq.” There is no reason for a country as globalized and industrialized as the U.S to continue to rely on 2nd and 3rd world traditions. The logic behind a capital “punishment” does not suit its purpose. A punishment is meant to make someone suffer and possibly learn from what they’ve done; the person being punished is supposed to feel bad. Killing them is not doing any of that for the criminal, to some it might even be a lighter “punishment” than a life sentence without possibility for parole. Humane euthanasia is not a punishment, it is simply a freebie for extremely dangerous people who deserve to spend the rest of their life confined and to only be able to think about what go them in their cell, and dream about what his life could be like if he hadn’t committed the crime. Amnesty International states, “Since Canada stopped executing, the murder rate has dropped by 44%.” This is not because criminals think prosecutors are getting nicer, so I should too, it’s because they are more afraid of a life sentence where they would actually have to suffer in the same cell of the same building for the rest of their life. It has been reported that the amount of deaths that account from capital punishment are slowly decreasing each year (Evans). Brian Evans claims, “The U.S is in the wrong company but moving in the right direction.” Capital Punishment’s faults are steadily coming into view for American citizens, and less each year vote to keep it. The morality of the situation and how it makes America look as a country to other well-developed nations needs to come into play. Others could see America’s policies and question how does the free world kill its own citizens without being certain that they committed the crime, or other countries could see such imprudent mistakes as to how the U.S euthanizes citizens who were always innocent. 

Due to the country’s constant political progression, capital punishment is no longer an effective form of criminal sentencing. The death penalty has been a part of America’s for hundreds of years and was used against people who were accused of committing treason or witchcraft. But even though it is part of U.S history, the rest of the world is moving forward, leaving America behind. America has slowly attempted to reduce the use of capital punishment but will not completely abolish it, despite all of the flaws that comes with it. The cost of carrying out a capital punishment case far more exceeds the cost of sentencing a criminal to life in prison. Keeping and following through with capital punishment effects the tax payers more than anyone, since they’re the ones who have to pay for it. It is too easy to socially discriminate someone based on their background and too difficult to resist stereotyping a person based on how society portrays them. Most of the men and women in prison are subject to be a minority living in poverty, and so anytime a crime is committed, it is too easy to assume it was someone of this nature. There have been many instances where a man of this description has been falsely accused of a crime he never committed. If it were not for someone in the judicial system who realized that the man in Bever’s article was truly innocent and stood up for him, he would’ve been murdered for no reason and completely missed out on his daughter’s life. Not all people who discriminate based on societal standings do it on purpose. It is a normal flaw that all people carry even if it is in the slightest way, but because of this flaw that every person has, it is too risky to determine whether someone should have life or death. Capital punishment is also a hard sentence to give with no sort of guidelines to follow. It can be almost impossible to determine which criminals deserve capital punishment and which deserve a life sentence. Supreme court constantly juggles with this battle every time the issue arises, and if it is a hard decision for supreme court to make, the highest court in all the land, then it is too difficult of a choice to be continuing to make. The point of capital punishment is also illogical. The point of a punishment is too make a criminal or a person in trouble regret what they’ve done. Humanely euthanizing a person will not teach them anything A life sentence with nothing to do but think about the decision they made to commit the crime they did, is a real punishment that will emotionally effect the criminal in multiple ways. Having the rest of your life to dread one decision will break apart an inmate, and at least spare a life if the conviction was false. Capital Punishment can no longer be a sentence that the people and the court expect to see progress from. The death penalty has run its course in American history and is now ready to be laid to rest. 
