Writer Biography

Olivia Larsen is a freshman at Utah State University. She has an older sister and a younger brother. Her family is from Parker, Colorado. She loves to spend time with her friends and family, hike, dance, run, and bake. Larsen is majoring in Nursing and minoring in Mental Health Advocacy and Awareness.

This essay was composed in December 2022 and uses MLA documentation.

These are not the only situations in which the death penalty system has failed. Executing innocent people happens consistently and oftentimes goes unnoticed. A clear example of killing without sufficient evidence is the story of George Stinney as told by Jill Smolowe, award-winning journalist and author. In 1944, George Stinney was a 14-year-old black boy in South Carolina. He was sentenced to death by the electric was no logical evidence was presented in the trial that he committed the murders. His trial lasted a single afternoon in a room full of 1,000 white people and in front of an all-white jury. Black people were not allowed in the room. Years later, his siblings are appealing his case and asking that his name be cleared (Smolowe et al.). After hearing these stories and seeing the injustice in our death sentencing system in the United States, it is clear that our system needs to be abolished. The death penalty should not be used as a form of punishment in the United States because it is unethical and inhumane, continues to show racial–and other–biases, and there are better alternatives.

Primarily, the death penalty is inhumane and unethical, and as such should no longer be practiced in the United States. Our system executes innocent people. Death should not be an acceptable or legal punishment. Glenn L. Pierce, criminologist and researcher at Northeastern University’s College of Social Sciences and Humanities, explains that we’ve learned “as long as states use the death penalty, at least some innocent defendants will be sentenced and (arguably) put to death” (Pierce and Radelet). Even if one innocent person is killed, it is enough to justify the abolition of the system. One person should be enough for us to change. If we do not stop executing innocent people, we must ask ourselves, Howmany more innocent people must die for us to consider changing the system? Should we stop after 100 innocent people are killed? 500? More? In a completely ethical world, we would halt executions after discovering that one innocent life was taken. Austin Sarat, American political scientist, professor, and supporter of abandoning the death penalty quotes Dale Dimitri, explaining that “[f]or even one man to be killed in the name of justice for crimes that he had nothing to do with is unacceptable. And for this to happen regularly is a preposterous travesty of justice” (qtd. in Sarat et al. 767). As seen in the cases of Johnny D Johnny, Herbert Richardson, and George Stinney, three innocent people have been on death row and two innocent people have been killed. These are just three examples; many more cases are not publicized and, presumably, more that are not known about. Our system has executed innocent people and will continue to do so unless significant changes are made. If the death penalty is implemented, it should only be on criminals that are proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. In addition to innocent people being executed, we can see that the system is unjust by looking at the number of innocent people released from death row who were wrongly convicted. Researchers have found “Since 1973 more than 150 people have been exonerated from death row” (Sarat et al. 759). This statistic makes me wonder how many innocent people have been executed. Surely we didn’t save all of the innocent people from death row. How many innocent people are being killed by an unjust system? These horrifying facts call for a system reform.

Execution is an irreversible act and a permanent solution that should not be implemented as there is always the lingering question of “what if they were innocent?” In an eye-opening article, “The Death Penalty and the Principle of Goodness” Ron House, professor at the University of Southern Queensland in Australia, presents some ideas that apply to our so widely accepted principles to the death sentence (House). We believe that the right to life is fundamental. If the person executed is later proven innocent, then we as a country have legally killed a person. A person just like you and me. Now, this is not to say that we should let our criminals go; however, they should not be eligible for the death penalty. We need to show mercy instead of the principle of reciprocal justice, or “an eye for an eye.” We should not punish others by doing what they did. We as a society live by the golden rule–we must treat others as we wish to be treated. Just because someone else breaks our unspoken morals, doesn’t permit us to do so. We cannot continue to live in a state of hypocrisy. One who has been present for twenty-seven executions declares the death penalty is “a form of legalized murder on that part of the state” (qtd. in Sarat et al. 766). No matter the status–innocent or guilty–we cannot uphold our faulty system any longer.

As we reflect on the three aforementioned cases of innocent people placed on death row, it would be detrimental for us not to recognize that all three of these victims are black men. This opens the discussion to the prejudiced nature of the death penalty. In addition to being inhumane and unethical, the death penalty also shows racial and other biases that create grounds for the system to be replaced. The article “Unmasking the American Death Penalty Debate: Race, Context, and Citizens’ Willingness to Execute” published in Social Science Quarterly offers evidence that more than just the initial crime impacts death sentencing decisions (“Unmasking”). They have found that men, adults, those who commit premeditated crimes, those who commit rape-murders, those who commit crimes against women or white people, Black and Latino offenders, and those who have a criminal history are more likely to be sentenced to death (“Unmasking”). There is bias involved in our justice system. We should not execute people because of the highly likely chance that the decision is biased. We are making life-or-death decisions. Racism and other biases can kill. In addition, it was found that “White people are more likely to be in favor of the death penalty if it is a black person” (“Unmasking”). When these things–that should not affect a death sentence–are taken into account during a judgment, we create an unjust system that needs to be put to rest. A death penalty supporter even suggests that the ability for him to uphold the death penalty “depends on our ability to restrict its use to the worst of our criminals and to impose it in a non-discriminatory fashion” (Pierce and Radelet). As seen beforehand, we have not proved that we can impartially use the death penalty. Therefore, according to the system mentioned by this death penalty supporter, the death penalty needs to be abolished. Our current system is biased and is not solely executing the worst of criminals–as seen in the cases of Herbert Richardson and George Stinney. These truths call for the United States to abandon the death penalty and instate a new system. It is appalling to know that “80 percent of the murder victims in cases resulting in an execution were white, even though nationally only 50 percent of murder victims generally are white” (Pierce and Radelet). We hold perpetrators more accountable when they kill white people. Racism is not only a problem in our justice system but also with the beliefs of Americans. We, as a whole, discriminate towards people who are not white. We need to abandon the system that is killing a disproportionate number of people of color and favoring the white majority. As such, it is clear that we need a new system–ours is broken.

There are better ways of dealing with criminals than putting them through an inhumane, unethical, and heavily biased system. Primarily, the best solution is a life sentence without parole. It is found that in most states in which the death penalty is still legal, “a person convicted of capital murder alternatively can be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole” (Pierce and Radelet). The death penalty and a life sentence without parole are seen as equivalent punishments in states that still execute. As such, it would be acceptable for the United States to replace the death penalty with a life sentence without parole as the second option is less permanent and more humane. What about the states that have already outlawed the death penalty? What are they doing with their criminals? In the article “Death Penalty Under Examination” published in State Legislatures, the system that New Mexico, has set in place for those that would have been on death row is depicted. In 2009, New Mexico outlawed the death penalty. Instead, they now implement life sentences without parole. This saves them millions of dollars a year as executing people via the death penalty is more expensive than keeping a person in prison for life (“Death Penalty”). A life sentence without parole–in the view of states for and against the death penalty–is a sufficient alternative.

Another alternative to the death penalty is abolishing it for specific groups, such as those who are mentally disabled or minors. Executing those that are mentally disabled has been outlawed since 2002 by the Supreme Court in the case Atkins v. Virginia. The benefits of this are described by Megan Green, professor at St. Mary’s University School of Law. Since this change, mentally ill people are held less accountable for their actions as they are not in their ‘right mind’ (Green). As seen with Herbert Richardson, a war veteran with severe PTSD, it was unjust to sentence him to death because of his mental state. He did not know what he was doing and made decisions that any mentally stable person would not make. By halting executions of mentally ill people, we made strides in the right direction. By putting this law into effect, we saved innocent lives. Furthermore, our justice system could treat people with mental illnesses as an act of rehabilitation (“Unmasking”). Treating people for mental illnesses is the more morally correct solution. We do not need to kill people that are not mentally in their right mind, are not aware of their actions, or are mentally disabled in any way–doing so raises ethical concerns. Many additionally claim that “a civilised society will not itself use violence as retribution; therefore all death sentences should be suspended in favour of genuine whole-of-life imprisonment” (House). There are better ways to deal with our worst criminals than killing them. The death penalty needs to be abolished because it is unethical, inhumane, biased, and there are better solutions.

In response to the idea of abolishing the death penalty, many say that the death penalty is beneficial for a community. This is because the death penalty decreases crimes, honors victims’ rights, and is sometimes a necessary punishment because of the severity of the crime committed. Many may also argue that while the death penalty should not be used on the innocent, as seen beforehand in the case of George Stinney and Herbert Richardson, it should be used on the guilty. Lastly, many may wonder about the cost of the death penalty in comparison to the cost of a life sentence without parole.

There is evidence presented by David Muhlhausen, leader of the United States National Institute of Justice, that the death penalty decreases crimes. Every execution in a community is “associated with ‘modest, short-term reductions’ in homicides, and a decrease of up to 2.5 murders” (Muhlhausen). While this is true, it is not an ethically correct solution. There are better ways that we can reduce crimes than by killing people. Kevin M. Barry, professor at Quinnipiac University School of Law, emphasizes that “The death penalty deprives the fundamental right to life in violation of substantive due process” (Barry 1546). In short, the government can’t take the right to life away. This violates the dignity of the condemned. The right to life is fundamental. There is no reasoning–including decreased crime rates–that can justify taking away this right.

However, many support the death penalty solely because it honors the rights of the victims. We need to recognize that victims were living and breathing. A large proponent of this is Mark Hansen, former senior writer for the American Bar Association Journal. Hansen highlights that the death penalty is a “victim’s rights movement” (Hansen). According to this ideology, to honor victims, we need to utilize the death penalty as a punishment. Along with this argument, is the idea that the death penalty creates peace and justice in a community (Hansen). Understandably, the family of a victim could want repercussions in response to the death of their loved one. However, as aforementioned, the death penalty violates due process and the right to life of criminals. No matter what they did, the state should not be allowed to take their right to life as well. Capital punishment is legalized killing by the state.

The final argument that is often made for the death penalty is that it is sometimes necessary because of the severity of the crime. This idea is supported by the Supreme Court. They claim that execution is not against the eighth amendment. The eighth amendment states that there shall not be excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishments. This communicates the importance of justice and how some crimes are so wrong that they need permanent solutions (Barry). If we refocus our justice system on helping our criminals, this could benefit both parties. This refocus would save money as well as avoid killing people. In any situation–guilty or not–punishing someone to death is inhumane. The solution to this problem is a life sentence without parole. It is a common misconception as well that we execute people because it is cheaper. In reality, the death penalty costs states more money (“Death Penalty”). This discredits the misconception that putting people in prison is more expensive than killing them. In addition, even if it were more expensive to put people in prison, it would still be a system that needs to be put to rest because it is unethical and biased. Cost cannot be the only driving factor in our decisions. The system as a whole is biased and immoral. Even if one innocent person is executed, it is enough to justify the system being abolished. We need to rethink what we do with our criminals as a society.

In the bigger scheme of things, people often criticize our justice system as a whole because of overcrowding in our prisons. People wonder how we would fit all of these criminals that we do not execute into our prison system. Here, I offer up my own solution. I believe that if we take the money that is currently used to execute people, and instead put it into our prison system, (build more prisons and implement reformation systems in our prisons) we can create a better solution for dealing with our criminals. Our prison system is broken, but as we implement reformation we can change our criminals instead of killing them. As a society, we believe in repentance, change, compassion, and mercy. As we implement life sentences as opposed to death sentences and make changes to our prison system, we can create a more humane, ethical, financially smart, and less biased system.

The death penalty is a faulty and broken system that needs to be replaced. This system should not be used even on our most horrendous and guilty prisoners. The death penalty should not be used as a form of punishment in the United States because it is unethical and inhumane, continues to show racial–and other–biases, and there are better alternatives. Although many argue that the death penalty decreases crimes, honors victims’ rights, and is sometimes a necessary punishment, we cannot deny that the system is broken beyond repair. Our best solution is to replace it with life sentences without parole or an entire reform of our justice system. No matter the circumstance, execution is never the correct solution. It is time that we incarcerate execution as a form of retribution in the United States.

Works Cited

Barry, Kevin M. “The Death Penalty and the Fundamental Right to Life.” Boston College Law Review, vol. 60, no. 6, June 2019, pp. 1545–604. EBSCOhost, https://search-ebscohost-co m.dist.lib.usu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=137618961&site=ehost-live. Accessed 26 October 2022.

“Death Penalty Under Examination.” State Legislatures, vol. 35, no. 6, June 2009, p. 10. EBSCOhost, https://search-ebscohost-com.dist.lib.usu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=as n&AN=41021906&site=ehost-live. Accessed 29 October 2022.

Green, Megan. “Texas, the Death Penalty, and Intellectual Disability.” St. Mary’s Law Journal, vol. 50, no. 3, June 2019, pp. 1029–57. EBSCOhost, https://search-ebscohost-com.dist.lib .usu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=139359709&site=ehost-live. Accessed 30 October 2022.

Hansen, Mark. “Final Justice.” ABA Journal, vol. 78, no. 3, Mar. 1992, p. 64. EBSCOhost, https:/ /search-ebscohost-com.dist.lib.usu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=4793968&s ite=ehost-live. Accessed 30 October 2022.

House, Ron. “The Death Penalty and the Principle of Goodness.” International Journal of Human Rights, vol. 13, no. 5, Dec. 2009, pp. 680–88. EBSCOhost, https://doi-org.dist.lib. usu.edu/10.1080/13642980802533224. Accessed 3 November 2022.

Muhlhausen, David B. “Is It Time to Abolish the Death Penalty?” U.S. News Digital Weekly, vol. 6, no. 38, Sept. 2014, p. 16. EBSCOhost, https://search-ebscohost-com.dist.lib.usu.edu/lo gin.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=98390633&site=ehost-live. Accessed 29 October 2022.

Pierce, Glenn L., and Michael L. Radelet. “Monitoring Death Sentencing Decisions.” Human Rights, vol. 34, no. 2, Spring 2007, pp. 1–4. EBSCOhost, https://search-ebscohost-com.di st.lib.usu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=27340757&site=ehost-live. Accessed 26 October 2022.

Sarat, Austin, et al. “The Rhetoric of Abolition: Continuity and Change in the Struggle against America’s Death Penalty, 1900-2010.” Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, vol. 107, no. 4, Fall 2017, pp. 757–80. EBSCOhost,https://search-ebscohost-com.dist.lib.usu.edu/l ogin.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=125935999&site=ehost-live. Accessed 3 November 2022.

Smolowe, Jill, et al. “A Family’s Quest for Justice Wrongfully Executed at 14?” People, vol. 81, no. 10, Mar. 2014, p. 72. EBSCOhost, https://search-ebscohost-com.dist.lib.usu.edu/login. aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=94672846&site=ehost-live. Accessed 1 November 2022.

Stevenson, Bryan. Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption. Spiegel & Grau, 2014.

“Unmasking the American Death Penalty Debate: Race, Context, and Citizens’ Willingness to Execute.” Social Science Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell), vol. 102, no. 4, July 2021, pp. 1931–46. EBSCOhost, https://doi-org.dist.lib.usu.edu/10.1111/ssqu.13051. Accessed 29 October 2022.