Hennelly 1

Lexie Hennelly

Mrs. Pettay

ENG 112, 2A

30 March 2017

Locked in For Life

An eye for an eye. A statement used to defend the death penalty, but is taking ones life

the best way to get justice? Many debate if capital punishment should be allowed in our

progressive society. Only a handful of countries, including the United States, still implement the

death penalty, but many wonder if this punishment is an effective way to handle capital offenses.

Several people chime into the debate on the ProCon website, which discusses the positives and

negatives of controversial topics that are relevant to our society. These opinionated commenters

discuss the issues of the death penalty, such as assessing the differences of a life sentence in

prison versus the penalty, the constitutionality, the morality, and how the penalty affects crime

rates.

Supporters of the death penalty argue that this punishment is a useful way to deter crime,

and most importantly is supported by the Constitution and certainly a moral way to deal with

heinous crimes. Michael Summers, who is a Professor of Management Science at Pepperdine

University, explains that a study conducted by his research team shows that each execution leads

to about 74 fewer murders in the following year (ProCon). Many studies show there have been a

decrease in murders while the death penalty is used. The validity of the studys results is

questionable, mostly because of the various factors that affect murder rates. Joseph Blocher, a

Professor of Law at Duke Law School, writes in his academic journal article titled, The Death
 Hennelly 2

Penalty and the Fifth Amendment, how many Supreme Court justices defend the morality of the

death penalty because it is stated in the Constitution, commonly called the Fifth Amendment

Argument (Blocher 277). Justice Scalia even stated that not once has this Court ever

suggested the death penalty is categorically impermissible (qtd. in Blocher 277). He is referring

to the Eighth Amendment that states, cruel and unusual punishment is illegal and the Framers

never considered capital punishment as that. Both sides can agree with Justice Scalia, that

nowhere in the Constitution does it say the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment.

However, Blocher explains that it does not need to be explicitly stated to be considered cruel

punishment (Blocher 285). The supporters of the death penalty have valid points and many

families affected by murders feel as an execution would bring justice (ProCon). However, an

execution is a consequential decision and many factors need to be analyzed before our nation

takes another life.

I believe that the death penalty is hurting us as a unified nation. Life in prison is a better

choice than capital punishment, the Fifth Amendment Argument is not a valid reason for

keeping the penalty, and ending someones life is a serious immoral decision. The American

Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) stated that the death penalty costs more, delivers less, and puts

innocent lives at risk (ProCon). The ACLU defends the point that a sentence of life without

parole would be a better option. Additionally, the Fifth Amendment Argument does not

provide a reason to keep the death penalty and it is now considered a legally prohibited cruel

and unusual punishment (Blocher 293). When ending someones life by capital punishment, it

is basically committing a similar crime that this criminal just carried out. This is where the

saying an eye for an eye comes from. If a person kills someone, they will then be killed. This

logic seems backwards if one of our nations goals is to reduce these crimes. Bryan Stevenson,
 Hennelly 3

JD, who is a Professor at New York University School of Law, explains that no one, especially

the government has the right to take someones life (ProCon). I believe that for both groups to

understand each other, they need to fix the root of this issue: the crime itself.

I hope to find some common ground between supporters and opponents of the death

penalty. Collectively, the groups could solve the problem of growing crime rates. Instead of

arguing about who is right when it comes to capital punishment, each group could use their

strengths to combat capital crime. I understand, that unfortunately murders will never stop, so

the issue of the death penalty will always be present, but a decline of heinous crimes will help

our nation. Fighting the original problem will be helpful to both sides as they support or oppose

the death penalty.

The death penalty is a way for criminals to escape their punishments, as well as being

costly, immoral, and not affecting crime rates at all, this method is not an unacceptable way to

deal with punishing criminals. In no way am I trying to get a lighter sentence for these criminals.

The people put on death row are the ones that have committed the most heinous crimes. I would

rather have them sit in prison for the rest of their lives, instead of ending it altogether. Since, no

one knows where they go when they die, they could be taking the easy way out for the crime

they have committed. The opponents of capital punishment should consider the fact that justice

is not served by killing criminals, and it is giving the government too much power to have the

ability to end a life. By supporters accepting the opposing position, they will hopefully realize

that ending the death penalty will allow us to create a more acceptable system for punishing

criminals, while still serving justice to those who are affected.

 Hennelly 4

Works Cited

Blocher, Joseph. The Death Penalty and The Fifth Amendment. Northwestern University Law

Review Online, vol. 111, no. 1, 15 July 2016, pp. 275-293. Academic Search Complete,

web.a.ebscohost.com.eztcc.vccs.edu:2048/ehost/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=8d907cc0-7a6c-

46b79df0a395a7219efc%40sessionmgr4010&hid=4204&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3Qtb

Gl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=120553778&db=a9h. Accessed 24 March 2017.

ProCon. "Death Penalty ProCon.org." Should the Death Penalty Be Allowed? ProCon.org, 2017.

Web. 24 March 2017.