Persuasive Essay Against Death Penalty

The death penalty is a cruel and unnecessary punishment. It promotes violence and terrorism. The death penalty does not deter a crime, and it costs millions of dollars. The death penalty does not reduce crimes. The death penalty is immoral and it shows discrimination. The death penalty is unfair. The death penalty needs to be abolished because no one deserves to die. Two wrongs do not make a right. Twenty percent have showed that people who were executed was found not guilty.
Since they reestablished the death penalty, eighty seven people have been freed from death row because they were found innocent. When it comes to life and death, we need to appeal the same specifications for our system of justices. It is better than a lot of guilty people

In Griffin v. Illinois, the late Justice Hugo L. Black wrote: "There can be no equal justice when the kind of trial a man gets depends on how much money he has in his pocket." If two suspects, one wealthy, one poor, are charged with a capital crime, the standard of justice changes. The rich defendant will post bail, preserve attorneys of choice, hire investigators and hire experts who will give psychiatric testimony for the defense. (Dispoldo, Nick.) The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (NCAB) wrote in its fact sheet “Death Penalty Overview: Ten Reasons Why Capital Punishment is Flawed Public Policy” published on its website (accessed Aug. 19, 2008): ): “Perhaps the most important factor in determining whether a defendant will receive the death penalty is the quality of the representation he or she is provided. Almost all defendants in capital cases cannot afford their own attorneys. In many cases, the appointed attorneys are overworked, underpaid, or lacking the trial experience required for death penalty cases. There have even been instances in which lawyers appointed to a death case were so inexperienced that they were completely unprepared for the sentencing phase of the trial. Other appointed attorneys have slept through parts of the trial, or arrived at the court under the influence of alcohol.”(procon.org.) The death penalty shows discrimination. The more money people have in their

Lawyers challenging the death penalty appointed on the convicts yesterday said that the law is cruel and disgraceful. The problem is not what the people say, but what the constitution states about it. Katende told the judges that it is the petitioner’s case that the burden of the death penalty upon the condemned prisoners is inconstant with Article 24 and 44(a) of the constitution. He said that the constitution promotes that the principle rights and freedom of a person be considered, and it includes everybody, including the government, to respect those rights. Katende stated that the role of the court should not decide cases according to public opinion, but to what the constitution states. Katende said that the process of execution causes disruption mentally and psychologically to the condemned inmate. (" 'Death Penalty Unconstitutional '.") William J. Brennan, JD, Justice of the US Supreme Court, in the July 2, 1976 dissenting opinion in Gregg v. Georgia, stated: "Death is not only an unusually severe punishment, unusual in its pain, in its finality, and in its enormity, but it serves no penal purpose more effectively than a less severe punishment... The fatal constitutional infirmity in the punishment of death is that it treats 'members of the human race as nonhumans, as objects to be toyed with and discarded. [It is] thus inconsistent with the fundamental premise of the Clause that even the vilest criminal remains a human being