Let us suppose that killing, as a form of punishment, is morally and universally accepted. Would it then be acceptable to issue this to some, while letting others avoid it? It is acceptable to our criminal justice system for it seems to be standard operating procedure. Many believe the death penalty based on the “Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” concept. The death penalty is improper due to the price and time of executing someone, that it isn’t a deterrent against violent crime, and how immoral and contradicting it is.
There are popular arguments in today’s public to support the death penalty. Some say that if we kill a man sentenced to the death penalty, it costs less than to keep that inmate locked up for the rest of his life. Also, the public feels that if we show violent offenders that they will be killed if they kill another, it will make them think twice about killing. Finally, people feel if someone is convicted of murder, they should be sentenced to the death penalty. However, research and facts show these arguments are not well founded.
A popular argument says that we spend too much money to incarcerate prisoners. A study done in Florida shows the price tag on issuing a death penalty is 3.1 million dollars; as where the typical life sentence costs 1 million dollars (Walker 108). That is a 3100% difference in the price of executing someone compared to putting them in jail for life. Also, executions take up to fifteen years or longer to be carried out, which goes into the price as well (Walker 106). That difference in money could lower taxes or better help out other areas in the United States, rather than taking a person’s life.
The next big argument is that the death penalty is a form of deterrence. The proposal is that knowing you will be executed if you choose to kill another will make you change your mind. Many studies...