What makes the death penalty wrong

But if, in fact, the death penalty does not deter, and we continue to impose it, we have only sacrificed the lives of convicted murderers. Surely it's better for society to take a gamble that the death penalty deters in order to protect the lives of innocent people than to take a gamble that it doesn't deter and thereby protect the lives of murderers, while risking the lives of innocents. If grave risks are to be run, it's better that they be run by the guilty, not the innocent. Finally, defenders of capital punishment argue that justice demands that those convicted of heinous crimes of murder be sentenced to death.

Justice is essentially a matter of ensuring that everyone is treated equally. It is unjust when a criminal deliberately and wrongly inflicts greater losses on others than he or she has to bear. If the losses society imposes on criminals are less than those the criminals imposed on their innocent victims, society would be favoring criminals, allowing them to get away with bearing fewer costs than their victims had to bear.

Justice requires that society impose on criminals losses equal to those they imposed on innocent persons. By inflicting death on those who deliberately inflict death on others, the death penalty ensures justice for all. This requirement that justice be served is not weakened by charges that only the black and the poor receive the death penalty. Any unfair application of the death penalty is the basis for extending its application, not abolishing it. If an employer discriminates in hiring workers, do we demand that jobs be taken from the deserving who were hired or that jobs be abolished altogether?

Likewise, if our criminal justice system discriminates in applying the death penalty so that some do not get their deserved punishment, it's no reason to give Iesser punishments to murderers who deserved the death penalty and got it.

Some justice, however unequal, is better than no justice, however equal. To ensure justice and equality, we must work to improve our system so that everyone who deserves the death penalty gets it. The case against capital punishment is often made on the basis that society has a moral obligation to protect human life, not take it. The taking of human life is permissible only if it is a necessary condition to achieving the greatest balance of good over evil for everyone involved.

Given the value we place on life and our obligation to minimize suffering and pain whenever possible, if a less severe alternative to the death penalty exists which would accomplish the same goal, we are duty-bound to reject the death penalty in favor of the less severe alternative. There is no evidence to support the claim that the death penalty is a more effective deterrent of violent crime than, say, life imprisonment.

Nearly years after Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of to eliminate racial discrimination in jury selection, people of color continue to be excluded from jury service because of their race. In capital trials, the accused is often the only person of color in the courtroom. Illegal racial discrimination in jury selection is widespread, especially in the South and in capital cases—thousands of Black people called for jury service have been illegally excluded from juries.

And regional data demonstrates that the modern death penalty in America mirrors the racial violence of the past. EJI won a ruling from the Supreme Court recognizing that people with dementia are protected from execution. At least 44 people with intellectual disability were executed before the Supreme Court banned such executions in In , the Court in Atkins v. Virginia , U. Three years after Atkins , the Court applied the same reasoning in Roper v. Simmons , U. When Roper was decided, 71 people were on death row for juvenile crimes.

Two-thirds were people of color, and more than two-thirds of the victims were white. Related Article. Executing people with mental illness presents the same concerns about culpability and reliability that led the Court to bar the death penalty for children and people with intellectual disability. People who have a mental illness or disability that significantly impairs their cognitive or volitional functioning at the time of the offense should be exempted from capital punishment because they do not act with the level of moral culpability that characterizes the most serious adult criminal conduct.

People with mental illness are more vulnerable to police pressure, are less able to give meaningful assistance to their counsel, and are typically poor witnesses. People who have a mental illness that causes delusions are more likely to insist on representing themselves at trial; they are prone to outbursts in front of their juries and some are so heavily medicated that they appear to have no remorse. EJI believes that executing people with mental illness is cruel and misguided.

After more than three decades of research examining whether the threat of a death sentence deters people from committing aggravated murders, there is no reliable evidence that the death penalty deters murder or that it protects police. The National Research Council of the National Academies concluded that studies claiming the death penalty has a deterrent effect are fundamentally flawed.

Pepper eds. Studies have shown that murder rates, including murders of police officers, are consistently higher in states that have the death penalty, while states that abolished the death penalty have the lowest rates of police officers killed in the line of duty. The likelihood of a death sentence or execution depends more on the county where the crime happened than the severity of the offense. But all state taxpayers have to bear the substantial financial costs of death penalty cases in the handful of counties that cling to this outdated and ineffective policy.

The death penalty is far more expensive than a system in which life imprisonment without parole is the maximum sentence. The cost of capital punishment is extraordinary. If those sentenced to death received life sentences instead, we accomplish the same deterrent effect of the death penalty: criminals remain off the streets for the rest of their lives.

The money saved could be spent on improving the criminal justice system, such as increasing public safety or providing resources to help prevent wrongful convictions. In November of , California voters passed Proposition 66, a measure to expedite the death penalty process. Three years later, in , Governor Gavin Newsom announced a moratorium on capital punishment just months after his inauguration. The executive order ends all death penalty sentences from being carried out throughout his tenure as Governor.

Research proves that the death penalty is ineffective; it does not deter crime, and it is extremely expensive to administer. While most incarcerated individuals — on death row or otherwise — are guilty, we cannot risk executing the innocent individuals wrongfully sentenced to death.

Donate to OADP. Common Questions Does Oregon currently have the death penalty? Capital punishment is legal in the U. The first execution under the territorial government was in Capital punishment was made explicitly legal by statute in , and executions have been carried out exclusively at the Oregon State Penitentiary in Salem since The death penalty was outlawed between and , again between and , and then again between a Oregon Supreme Court ruling and a ballot measure.

Since , about 60 individuals have been executed in Oregon. Aggravated murder is the only crime subject to the penalty of death under Oregon law. Thirty-four people are currently on Oregon's death row. The current method of execution in Oregon is lethal injection. Most Popular Most Recent. Request new password. Sign in using Facebook Connect.

Like Us on Facebook. Back to Top.