Should Capital Punishment Be Both Cruel And Unusual Punishment

Throughout its history, the United States judicial system has dealt with an abundance of cases relating to capital punishment. The topic has sparked much debate on whether or not the death penalty constitutes as cruel and unusual punishment. Much like the political world we live in, people have their own opinions on whether this punishment is humane. Many, in support of the death penalty see it as an opportunity to rid the country free of the worst criminals to ultimately achieve a much safer society. On the other hand, people in disagreement argue that no execution can be deemed “humane”. A main argument for the opposition of the death penalty claim that there are alternatives which can offer the same punishment without an inhumane “execution” such as life in prison. However, supporters of the death penalty see life in prison as an extremely unfair punishment related to the acts brought forth by these criminals. Why should a serial killer who has been found guilty on 6 accounts of first degree murder be allowed to

“live” the rest of his life, regardless of it behind bars? He shouldn’t, is the answer. Abolition supporters will continue to take shots at the ethics behind capital punishment,

For example, a state such as California which ruled the death penalty unconstitutional in 1968. The murder rate in California prior to the removal of the death penalty was around 2.4 per 100,000 of the population. As the process towards ridding the state free of the death penalty moved forward, executions began to slow up. In 1960, the murder rate had climbed to 3.9 percent and then again to 5.4 percent in 1967. In the year 1967, the death penalty was completely removed from the state of California. In result, the murder rate had skyrocketed to 14.5 per 100,000 people. Ultimately, the murder rate has remained between 11 per and 13.1 per 100,000 in the years to