Opposing Views On Death Penalty

For perhaps as long as mankind has existed, the concept of death has been one of discomfort, confusion, fear, and greatly of opinion. There are many themes within the confines of the greater topic of death that affect ones’ opinion on the matter, making it even more complex. Many questions are likely to arise when death is the subject, but in more recent history, the death penalty is one area that grabs the spotlight. In the United States, we see this hotly debated topic flip flop every ten years or so between a more unanimous “yes” or “no” regarding approval of the death penalty as punishment for capital crimes. Currently, it seems that our metaphorical political pendulum displays more of a left-leaning swing in terms of social issues;

For example, religion is one theme that may influence an individuals’ perception of the death penalty as a punishment for criminals who have been convicted of a qualifying capital crime. Some religions support an “eye for an eye” attitude and believe that the punishment for death should be death. Others may believe that the greatest sin of all is taking the life of another, so the death penalty is not acceptable. Regardless, one underlying theme is present in all religions – morality. The debate now becomes a battle between morality and immorality. In the United States, a main argument opponents of the death penalty make is that many people have been released from “death row” due to newly discovered issues with the case or due to new evidence discovery. Proponents argue that this systematic flaw is blown out of proportion; people who have been released back into society from death row are typically not released due to “actual innocence,” rather, a technicality from their court case gets them exonerated (Jost, 2005). Still, morality plays a factor in societal support or opposition to this form of punishment. In America, the death penalty reinforces the moral foundation upon which our laws are based. It establishes a staunch respect for the law and sets forth dire consequences for the worst members of our communities. To remove this ultimatum from our law

Opponents of the death penalty claim that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment’s promise to protect us from cruel and unusual punishment. However, this claim is essentially void when considering the true meaning of the Eighth in terms of its constitutionality. In our country’s Constitution, the amendment states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” If looking solely at this, an argument stating that the death penalty is cruel and unusual may very well be grounded. Despite the wording of the Eighth on its own, The Fifth Amendment is what must be taken into consideration when arguing against the death penalty using the Eighth Amendment. The rather wordy Fifth Amendment essentially states that no one may be held to answer for a capital crime without being indicted by a Grand Jury. It also says that nobody may be deprived of life without Due Process. Considering the fact that all death penalty cases go through a rigorous legal process (including indictment by Grand Jury and due process measures), the death penalty cannot be claimed as unconstitutional. In terms of federal law in the U.S., this form of punishment has never been considered unconstitutional, though it has obviously been argued as so. Even when a recipient of the lethal injection had to go