William Bruce Mumford's Argument Against The Death Penalty

Research Paper During the civil war, William Bruce Mumford, a traitor to the Union, was tried for treason for tearing down a flag of the Union. Treason was and still is a capital offense, and he was found guilty. The nation expected ultimate justice to be executed, and William Mumford was hung at the gallows. During that period of time, the death penalty was the highest punishment throughout the land, with it being feared by criminals and revered by others due to the justice it brought. But now times have changed, and the states prefer life in prison. But the fact remains that the death penalty is still the best at what it does, silencing killers and acting as a deterrent to prevent capital crimes. The death penalty is the best solution for

For starters, the death penalty saves your own tax money so you can actually get returns from the government. According to the federal register of the U.S., it costs around 90,000 dollars to house a criminal a year, and there are around 160,000 who are serving life in jail. Combine all of those costs and you get a staggering $14,440,000,000 in costs annually. As a result, around 53.1% of all funding for the department of justice goes towards those men and women convicted instead of upgrading law enforcement. Furthermore, silencing the cold blooded killers would be much more cost effective compared to keeping him penned up in a cell for the rest of his sorry life. All you need is five rifles, five cartridges of ammunition, and five volunteer trained shooters. A firing squad is much cheaper than housing an inmate for life. What’s better is that there is almost no pain for the death row inmate, which makes it constitutional. As the constitution points out, the execution must be cruel and unusual, but it is not cruel as there is almost no pain. If the government was to just execute all

The case with him shows another reason why these criminals convicted of capital offenses should be sentenced to death. As long as they live, they can influence others with their toxic ideas. These people are not safe or trustworthy anymore, and just like bad apples spoiling good apples, bad humans can spoil good humans. For the safety and better good of the general populous, it would be the best to just get rid of them. And even if they don’t influence others while alive, they can kill while living. Take for example the tragedy of the Tison vs Arizona case that made it’s way to the Supreme Court. In July 30, 1978, a massacre would take the nation by storm. “the Tison brothers...visited their father Gary in Arizona State Prison, where he was serving time for killing a prison guard. After the family had assembled in the designated visitor picnic area, the brothers popped off the cover of their ice chest. There was no food, just guns. All four of them - plus a fifth man, Gary's cellmate Randy Greenawalt - escaped from the prison...When the car got a flat in the Arizona wilderness, a 24-year-old marine sergeant travelling with his young family stopped to help. The gang seized and robbed the good Samaritans ...and gunned down the whole family”(Kay para. 3). The case above showed the U.S. that more good souls were taken out because the murderer was not