A currently highly controversial topic, the use of capital punishment/the death penalty, (the two term will be used interchangeably) in the United States has been in practice since the very beginning of this country. This subject is highly important and frequently debated because it hinges on the government’s abilities to intervene on one of the only worldwide, agreed upon, “human rights” that everyone deserves: life. Via capital punishment, the government has the right to end a human life. Most of the time, these people on death row are considered and proven guilty in the court of law in either one of 31 states that are still using the practice, or at the federal level, where the death penalty is completely legal. Most recently placed on death row at the federal level is Dylann Roof, whom is responsible for the notoriously racially driven Charleston church shooting. In circumstances such as this, it is almost unanimous across the general population that after committing such a heinous act, Roof certainly deserves the death penalty. However, in many cases, the evidence is not so cut and dried. Most recently, though generally unheard of, is the execution of Richard Masterson. Masterson was convicted of homicide in 2002. However, it was later found that following the victim’s death, medical examiner Paul Shrode was unqualified to perform the autopsy on the victim in which he ruled Masterson a killer. Masterson did plead guilty, though, which his lawyer argued was out of Masterson’s misunderstanding of his sentence and legal rights. Due to instances like these that are surrounded in mass confusion, there is a significant amount of controversy surrounding the death penalty from all angles. Through this paper the setbacks and benefits to the death penalty will be researched and analyzed. Additionally, this paper will explore and answer: With consideration to the current controversy over the use of capital punishment in the United States, what are the potential and present setbacks or benefits to using such a practice? Furthermore, should it be continued? Given the current controversial climate surrounding the use of capital punishment, the discrepancies in methods used throughout the country, and an overall lack of criminal evidence, the death penalty should be suspended in the United States until it can be safely regulated via evidence, medical protocol, and consistency throughout. 

According to the article “Capital Punishment in the United States and Beyond” by Paul Marcus of William and Mary, after exploring the death penalty in extensive detail in its various nuances, he concludes that we should seek an “improved process of guilt determination” regarding the use of death penalty. He notes additionally that the U.S. is unique in it’s historic distrust of a large, powerful central government. He follows up on this idea by noting that the U.S., as arguably the most developed country in the world, is seriously obsolete in it’s use of the death penalty. This is an interesting aspect to consider, and one initially not considered in this research paper. The major values and interests Marcus discusses are ethical and moral issues, as well as practical legal issues. He addresses the most obvious legal issue: proof of guilt. He notes that DNA testing has freed at least 170 inmates from death row. However, he says, DNA testing is limited to a very small number of cases; some inmates, in fact, do not receive any DNA testing prior to being executed. This practice of DNA testing, which should be protocol for every death sentence, is actually few and far between. Additionally, he addresses other subjective issues such as racism, sexism, and classism in the death penalty. Though he does not delve into detail regarding these specifics, he notes that those three facets certainly play an unfair role in the current use of Capital Punishment. Paul Marcus received both a J.D. and an A.B. at the University of California Los Angeles. Currently, he is a professor of law at William and Mary in Williamsburg, VA. He has written 50+ articles, authored and co-authored about ten books (all related to legal issues) and also acted as a Clerk for the U.S. Court of Appeals for several years. In reading the article no major biases were noted, especially considering Marcus never concluded if the practice should or should not be/continue to be used. Additionally, in research regarding him as a person, nothing is to be found regarding his personal or political views. 

In John Lamperti’s work, “Does Capital Punishment Deter Murder?”, the central question Lamperti is answering is: does the death penalty provide a better deterrent to murder/violent crimes than long term or life imprisonment? His evidence is based on a study conducted by Thorsten Sellin (Swedish- American sociologist; pioneer of scientific criminology). The results of this study concluded that, based on Sellin’s statistical analyses and observations: homicide death rates vary vastly on a state by state basis- no clear connection can be drawn; trends of homicide death rates in states that did not practice the death penalty were either the same or similar to those that did practice the death penalty. Additionally, he noted that given similar social and economic situations, it is impossible to blindly distinguish abolition states from those still practicing capital punishment. In essence, there is nothing distinguishable about states that practice or do not practice capital punishment with regard to their crime rates. He uses proven statistics about socioeconomic status, race, and incarceration rates to make his claims. He first cites the clinical field test of the Salk Polio Vaccine. The outcome of this clinical field test proved that the vaccine statistically, was judged an ultimate success. Lamperti claims that it is impossible to analyze the death penalty under a study designed like a medical field test. There is no control or independent group, and the issues are far too complex and widespread to compare to the death penalty and it’s use in America. Additionally, he notes that prisoners do not have the same rights as those volunteering to participate in a clinical trial. He next cites the use of cigarettes/tobacco and the presence of lung cancer. In his study, he could not prove that cigarettes directly correlate to lung cancer because often times those who smoke cigarettes had different traits than those who do not smoke (increased impulsivity, less exercise, etc.), i.e. there is an opportunity for a “third” issue to be at hand in those who smoke, leading to lung cancer. Lamperti compares the fuzzy correlation between smoking and lung cancer to the fuzzy correlation between the death penalty and deterrence. John W. Lamperti earned a B.S. in Mathematics and Statistics from Haverford College, as well his PhD in Mathematics from the California Institute of Technology. Though he is a mathematics professor, he has dedicated much of his life to political and social work and research. As far as the death penalty is concerned, Lamperti claims statistics and math intersect with this social issue through “deterrence”. He has examined the statistical abilities of the death penalty to act as a deterrent to commit crimes to criminals. According to his statistical analyses, the death penalty does not act as an effective deterrent, and thus, should not be continued in the U.S. 

Another researcher focused on this practice’s ability to “deter” a criminal from committing a certain crime (in this instance, typically murder) is Rob Warden. As one of the pioneers of the “anti-death penalty” movement, Warden claims in his article, “Reflections on Capital Punishment,” that the death penalty has no deterrent effect, maintaining that the penalty costs more to tax payers than it would to house inmates for life, and that there have certainly been innocent Americans killed by the death penalty. Warden is a well known legal affairs journalist. He is both an editor and a publisher at Chicago Lawyer magazine. In the 80’s, he uncovered dozens of wrongful legal convictions alone, as well as figured out several wrongful capital punishment convictions. This article, written in the fall of 2009, there are several issues surrounding this time period related to capital punishment. In early ’09, Romell Broom had a “botched” execution, as well as several predecessors in ’08 and ’07 of executions “gone wrong” or executing a potentially innocent person. It is important to acknowledge these things in the light of this article considering the gravity of one’s life.

Rather than focusing on issues such as innocence vs. guilt or race, Richard C. Dieter takes a different look into the death penalty in his work, “Methods of Execution and Their Effect on the use of the Death Penalty in the United States”. He examines the effect of different methods of execution on the prisoner, their families, and the staff. He says there is a huge vail placed on lethal injection. He references an article from the L.A. Times that sets up the scenario of lethal injection very realistically. The prisoners have little to no idea what drugs are being injected into them (illegal in hospitals and doctors offices across America), then, once IVs are set up and inserted, the cold, dark, room is shut and locked and the prisoner is left alone to die (or not die in some circumstances). In the adjacent room, the drugs are administered by medical staff, or sometimes even merely unqualified prison workers, and the room is often cramped with press, prison staff, and state workers. He claims this is a terrible way to go about the death penalty process, and cites stories of doctors and nurses claiming the procedure was not done in accordance with medical protocol. The major values and interests Dieter explores in this article are twofold. First, he explores the problems and issues with lethal injection. He highlights that sometimes it doesn't work, sometimes leaving the prisoner in agony for hours, the medical staff is shorthanded, or even nonexistent, or the medicines used have not been tested and approved yet by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This would be considered a moral issue regarding the prisoner’s rights to both proper medical care and ethical rights to be free of pain. Secondly, he addresses how this awful process could be inflicted on an innocent prisoner and how immoral and illegal this concept is. Dieter graduated cum laude with a law degree from Georgetown University Law Center. He has been the executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C. for over 20 years. He has additionally written a multitude of publications about law and ethics, many of which relate to the death penalty. Though the Death Penalty Information Center expresses no direct bias on the practice, in Dieter’s personal life, he does not defend the policy. He claims (in a separate article) that if life in prison were substituted for execution, there would never be an instance of killing an innocent citizen via death row. He additionally cites racial bias and mental retardation as reasons to not use the practice, as they have been noted to effect one’s chances of living or dying on death row (minorities and mentally handicapped generally being victims). 

In addition to ethical and health issues, lack of evidence of deterrent factors, and other reasons, CNN Legal Analyst Philip Holloway has also spoken out regarding this issue in his article “Time to Question the Sanity of the Death Penalty”. Essentially this paper makes the argument that there are a multitude of reasons why the death penalty both does not work and why there are more effective ways to handle dangerous criminals. Holloway, through this paper, reiterates many of the facts that have already been proven against this practice in a modern setting. This topic was brought up due to the jury in Holmes’ case deciding whether or not to implement the death penalty. Holmes had been found guilty of murder in the first degree for killing 12 people in the well known tragic Aurora Massacre. The writer argues that lifelong imprisonments are a better alternative to the actual death penalty because they ultimately cause more suffering to the inmate (which then creates deterrence to committing the crime). He argues the death penalty is expensive and makes no financial sense for the tax dollar/tax payer, that it is harder on murder victims’ families, it is not fairly applied, and, occasionally, innocent people/“criminals” die on death row. Holloway is a lawyer now working as a top level CNN legal analyst. He is both a former prosecutor and police officer, which gives him a unique introspective knowledge into this specific issue as he has, in a sense, been on “both sides” of the equation. 

In conclusion, it has become increasingly evident that the death penalty should be outlawed until the United States Government can pass laws to ultimately regulate this on a national level. It is unacceptable that abortion, so highly contested and debated, has become such a topic of debate, yet the death penalty has been almost untouched with regard to current political discussion. The two topics both discuss ending a “human life” at the decision of another human being. Considering bills are currently being passed in the White House to stop abortion, or at least strictly limit it, it is concerning that the death penalty has rarely even been discussed in current politics. It has been proven unsafe by the FDA and noted as an inhumane practice by medical workers, doctors, and prison staff alike. It has additionally gone unproven that the death penalty even acts as a deterrent to criminals at all. Given the strict regulations on the food we eat, the cars we drive, and even the things we say by the government, it is unfathomable that the death penalty has hardly even been questioned by democrats and republicans alike. This practice is ill-proven and inhumane and should be put out of practice until certified medical officials and legal workers can devise a humane, effective, and proven plan to use this practice with strict regulations, just like any other medical or legal practice. 
