As a young student, I personally believe in the death penalty. As a Christian, I should be against it, like many others, because the purpose of Christianity is to promote love and peace. But when I think of the pain of the victims` relatives, the only solution I find to compensate for this is the execution of the murderer. But for the death penalty to be applied fairly, we must strive to ensure that the criminal justice system functions as intended. [37] See Pierre Desert, Second Optional Protocol: Frequently Asked Questions, World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, June 27, 2008, www.worldcoalition.org/Second-Optional-Protocol-Frequently-Asked-Questions.html; Pierre Desert, Second Optional Protocol: The Only Global Treaty Aiming to the Abolition of the Death Penalty, World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, 24. June 2008, www.worldcoalition.org/UN-Protocol-the-only-global-treaty-aiming-at-the-abolition-of-the-death-penalty.html; Second Optional Protocol, loc. cit. 21. This is irreversible and errors occur.

Execution is the ultimate and irrevocable punishment: the risk of executing an innocent person can never be eliminated. Since 1973, more than 160 prisoners sent on death row in the United States have been exonerated or released from death row. Others were executed despite serious doubts about their guilt. Gender and socio-economic class also determine who receives a death sentence and who is executed. Women account for only two per cent of all those sentenced to death, although women commit about 11 per cent of all criminal homicides. Many of the women sentenced to death were guilty of killing men who had violently abused them for years. Since 1900, only 51 women have been executed in the United States (15 of them black). The classic statistical study on racial discrimination in capital cases in Georgia, presented in the McCleskey case, showed that “the average probability of receiving a death penalty among all accused cases was 4.3 times higher in cases involving white victims.” (David C. Baldus et al., Equal Justice and the Death Penalty, 1990) In 1987, this data was presented to the Supreme Court in McCleskey v. Kemp, and although the Court did not challenge the statistical evidence, it concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish a general pattern of racial bias.

Mr. McCleskey would have to prove racial bias in his own case – a task virtually impossible. The court also concluded that the evidence could not prove that “there was a constitutionally significant risk of racial prejudice.” (481 US 279) Although the Supreme Court stated that the plaintiff`s appeal was “better presented to legislative bodies,” subsequent efforts to persuade Congress to remedy the problem through the enactment of the Racial Justice Act were unsuccessful. (Don Edwards & John Conyers, Jr., The Racial Justice Act – A Simple Matter of Justice, in University of Dayton Law Review 1995) The death penalty is an intolerable denial of civil liberties and is contrary to the fundamental values of our democratic system. The death penalty is not civilized in theory and unjust and unjust in practice. Through litigation, laws and advocacy against this barbaric and brutal institution, we strive to prevent executions and achieve the abolition of the death penalty. This Pew Research Center analysis examines public opinion on the death penalty in the United States and examines how the country has used the death penalty in recent decades. Annual executions are well below their peak.

Nationally, 17 people were executed in 2020, the smallest number since 1991 and well below the modern peak of 98 in 1999, according to bjS and the Death Penalty Information Center. The COVID-19 outbreak disrupted court proceedings across much of the country in 2020, leading to the postponement of some executions. Especially in the 1960s, several attempts were made to declare the use of the death penalty unconstitutional because it was “cruel and unusual” and therefore violated the Eighth Amendment. The 1958 Case of the Supreme Court of Trop V Dulles, although not a death penalty case, interpreted the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution as containing an “evolving standard of decency that marked the progress of a maturing society.” This declaration served as the basis for the abolitionist campaign. 10 years later, in 1968, in US v Jackson, the Supreme Court began to consider the practical application of the death penalty, according to which the death penalty can be imposed even if it is not recommended by a jury. That same year, the court ruled that a juror`s reservations about the death penalty were not sufficient to prevent him from serving in himself, unless they were so strong that the jury was prevented from making an impartial decision. In this debate, reprisals are the idea that the death penalty is necessary to bring justice to victims, victims` families and/or society as a whole. Opponents who argue that the death penalty is not necessary as retaliation argue that reform justice is more productive, that innocent people are often killed in search of reprisals, and that “an eye for a blind eye the whole world.” Judge John Marshall Harlan, who wrote for the court in the Furman case, remarked, “. the history of the death penalty for homicide.

reveals ongoing and systematically unsuccessful efforts to identify homicides for which the murderer was to die before the incident. Those who have struggled with the difficult task of trying to find ways to channel the discretion of the death sentence have confirmed the lesson that history has taught. Identifying the characteristics of criminal homicides and their perpetrators that require the death penalty before the fact and expressing these characteristics in language that can be equitably understood and applied by the sentencing authority seems to be tasks that go beyond current human capacities. (402 United States 183 (1971)) The third criminal objective, retaliation, is the expression of society`s right to make a moral judgment by imposing on a criminal a sentence proportional to the crime he has committed. Twenty-nine States and the representatives of the people in Congress spoke aloud; The death penalty should be available for the worst of the worst. The joy of brutality, pain, violence and death can always be with us.

Menu