Here's a paper I wrote
The use of the death penalty is unconstitutional and it needs to be abolished. It infringes upon the 8th amendment which states “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The part of the amendment I want to look at is the “cruel and unusual punishment.” Just because someone is guilty of taking another life does not justify the idea that we should, in turn, be able to take his. This philosophy, when thought about, makes the United States government and the people who advocate that usage of the death penalty no better than the murders that are out there now.
Let’s expand on the notion that the people who agree with the usage of the death penalty are no better than the murders that are subjected to the death penalty. Although, there is no law or amendment which specifically states the usage of the death penalty to be unconstitutional, it is still a matter of morality which plays into this topic. You can not talk about the death penalty and keep the argument free from biasness. The fifth commandment in the Catholic religion states, “Thou shall not kill.” This means no killing is justified; a murder is a murder. So to take the life of someone because he took the life of another is morally wrong. There is just no two ways about it.
To help further my stance against the death penalty, I turned to one of the more profound opponents to the death penalty, the Amnesty International. Amnesty International is “an organization dedicated to the protection and promotion of human rights.” They believe that the death penalty is “cruel” and can be “inflicted on the innocent.” They also offer the arguments that it violates the right to life (even if the person living has taken one away) and it has never shown to be useful in helping to deter a certain crime. This is especially the case with homicide. Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1978, homicides, as reported have been up and down. In 1978, there was a reported 19,560 homicides in the United States alone. The next year, 21,460, and in 1980 there were a reported 23,040 homicides. The number had steadily increased since 1978, and although it is down to approximately 16,000 in 2002, the number was on the rise from 2001 which shows that the death penalty is not a major deterrent for any crime.
The problem with the death penalty remains that it is in violation of the 8th amendment rights which guarantee a person the idea that a cruel and unusual punishment will not be deemed upon them if proven guilty. The death penalty is “cruel”, there is no two ways about it. Through looking at reports of the death penalty being used, we see that the subjection to who is worthy of being “killed” is all based on biasness. Biasness is not a good moral factor for the usage of the death penalty. Today, the United States is dwindling the numbers of people being sent to death row and ultimately will discontinue the usage of the death penalty. They understand that the death penalty is wrong inherently and should be abolished. If they didn’t feel this way, then I believe they would have never overturned the case of Penry v. Lynaugh in which allowed the death of the mentally retarded if found guilty of a crime. Also, reports show that the death penalty is not a major deterrent for crimes in the United States. The homicide rates in the past 25 years have remained stable, averaging about 18,000 a year. They went up in the beginning and continued to decrease minimally each year. In the year 2001, the death rate was at approximately 16,000, but it did not include whatsoever the events that transpired at the World Trade Center. The death penalty is unconstitutional and I see we need to rid the world of the plague that binds us.
**There were other examples I had used in my paper that I deleted on here because I didn't feel like referencing them again (I know, how gay). Also, if I left the whole paper as it was, it would take up one half of your buddy page and I don't feel like hearing anyone bitch.
Let’s expand on the notion that the people who agree with the usage of the death penalty are no better than the murders that are subjected to the death penalty. Although, there is no law or amendment which specifically states the usage of the death penalty to be unconstitutional, it is still a matter of morality which plays into this topic. You can not talk about the death penalty and keep the argument free from biasness. The fifth commandment in the Catholic religion states, “Thou shall not kill.” This means no killing is justified; a murder is a murder. So to take the life of someone because he took the life of another is morally wrong. There is just no two ways about it.
To help further my stance against the death penalty, I turned to one of the more profound opponents to the death penalty, the Amnesty International. Amnesty International is “an organization dedicated to the protection and promotion of human rights.” They believe that the death penalty is “cruel” and can be “inflicted on the innocent.” They also offer the arguments that it violates the right to life (even if the person living has taken one away) and it has never shown to be useful in helping to deter a certain crime. This is especially the case with homicide. Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1978, homicides, as reported have been up and down. In 1978, there was a reported 19,560 homicides in the United States alone. The next year, 21,460, and in 1980 there were a reported 23,040 homicides. The number had steadily increased since 1978, and although it is down to approximately 16,000 in 2002, the number was on the rise from 2001 which shows that the death penalty is not a major deterrent for any crime.
The problem with the death penalty remains that it is in violation of the 8th amendment rights which guarantee a person the idea that a cruel and unusual punishment will not be deemed upon them if proven guilty. The death penalty is “cruel”, there is no two ways about it. Through looking at reports of the death penalty being used, we see that the subjection to who is worthy of being “killed” is all based on biasness. Biasness is not a good moral factor for the usage of the death penalty. Today, the United States is dwindling the numbers of people being sent to death row and ultimately will discontinue the usage of the death penalty. They understand that the death penalty is wrong inherently and should be abolished. If they didn’t feel this way, then I believe they would have never overturned the case of Penry v. Lynaugh in which allowed the death of the mentally retarded if found guilty of a crime. Also, reports show that the death penalty is not a major deterrent for crimes in the United States. The homicide rates in the past 25 years have remained stable, averaging about 18,000 a year. They went up in the beginning and continued to decrease minimally each year. In the year 2001, the death rate was at approximately 16,000, but it did not include whatsoever the events that transpired at the World Trade Center. The death penalty is unconstitutional and I see we need to rid the world of the plague that binds us.
**There were other examples I had used in my paper that I deleted on here because I didn't feel like referencing them again (I know, how gay). Also, if I left the whole paper as it was, it would take up one half of your buddy page and I don't feel like hearing anyone bitch.