The Death Conalty: The Consequences Of The Death Penalty

950 Words4 Pages
The death penalty or capital punishment is a controversial topic that many people like to ignore, or put on the back burner. The death penalty is a sentence, while capital punishment is the actual execution. It is wrong and immoral. In extreme crime cases where the death penalty would be considered, life without parole is the better consequence. Innocent people could, and have been put to death wrongfully. Racial bias, along with multiple other problems that this consequence holds shows why this sentence is an issue. Despite many flaws this sentence holds, states still actively use it. As of now, there are thirty-one states with the death penalty. The conversation is split between two groups. The people who want to abolish that sentence, and…show more content…
Most all countries have used this system, and still actively do so for a punishment. It dates back to a long time ago like the medieval times (guillotine). It has obviously grew and changed with our judicial system and has greatly improved in finding people guilty. Crimes resulting in the death penalty are murder, rape, treason, espionage, etc. Every state that has the death penalty, its main method of execution is lethal injection. A few states do have the option for the inmate to pick death by electrocution or a gas chamber. Life without the possibility of parole is also a consequence for the same crimes listed above and more. This term means, that, the person who committed the crime will go to jail for the rest of their life with no way to appeal or have trials to get out. Unless, the conviction is overturned by the person being innocent, or a government official (like a governor) commutes the sentence. The opposing side that says the death penalty is good and should be encouraged, has many important points to show. It saves money, and it deters major crimes. There are many retribution factors as well, like the saying “an eye for an eye”. They also claim that racial bias is just a coincidence but there is a strong lack of evidence supporting that…show more content…
(Sharp, 1997) In attempting to find articles stating that the the death penalty is less expensive than life with out parole, I came across many more supporting it the other way around. There is no definite facts on the exact amount of money because each state is different in the pricing which lead to the finding out that in some states, the death penalty is much more expensive than life with out parole, but in other states, life without parole is the pricier option. It is shown that when comparing which is the more expensive choice, it is actually based on how much the tax payers are paying. This proves that life without parole is more expensive because tax payers are paying the same amount of money each year for the inmate. When there is not a death penalty and they do not get executed, the tax payers are paying yearly for how ever long the person is alive for vs the average 6 years that a person on death row is an inmate. (Phillips,
Open Document