The death penalty should be banned in the United States.

Contention 1Ineffective DeterrentThe death penalty itself does not accomplish what it should. While it does seek to end the life of criminals who have committed extremely severe crimes, the penalty itself was also put in place as a deterrent to prevent future crimes from happening. Basically if people saw they could die for committing murder, it would reduce the rate of homicides that occur. The desired outcome is not being achieved within this aspect. Most of this nations leading Criminologist accept this as well. A recent study shows this"A recent survey of the most leading criminologists in the country found that the overwhelming majority did not believe that the death penalty is a proven deterrent to homicide. Eighty-eight percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide"[1] So the next most logical question, is why do the best in the nation not accept the fact that it acts as a deterrent? It is because of the studies done involving the rate of homicides. Statistics show this"States in the United States that do not employ the death penalty generally have lower murder rates than states that do. The same is true when the U. S. is compared to countries similar to it. The U. S. , with the death penalty, has a higher murder rate than the countries of Europe or Canada, which do not use the death penalty. "[2]There are lower murder rates in states who do not use the death penalty when compared to states who practice it. Even the people whom support the death penalty acknowledge that the number of homicides it prevents is small. It is shown that only 18 homicides are prevented yearly because of the death penalty. "Using a panel data set of over 3,000 counties from 1977 to 1996, Professors Hashem , Rubin, Shepherd of Emory University found on a yearly average capital punishment prevents 18 fewer murders. "[3]With the death penalty being as severe as it is, you would think it would serve as a better way to prevent crime. Among the nations leading criminologist including people who don't support the penalty and do support the penalty, almost all of them acknowledge that the results of the penalty in the prevention of crime are questionable. With over 88 percent of the top criminologist in the nation acknowledging that is does not properly deter crime, we can logically conclude that it does not meet its initial purpose. Contention 2Violation of human rights and the right to lifeThis speaks for itself but the penalty itself specifically violates someones right to life. The Pro penalty side of this argument, normally states that taking someones life can be justified in certain situations. An article by people whom support it says this"The taking of human life has been strongly condemned by most world religions and philosophies over the centuries"[4]Needless to say that line of thought is flawed, because taking someone elses is life is normally only justified in sitatuions like self defense. I will get to that in a second as well. A vast majority of other countries have acknowledged this is a violation of human rights, and a good number of those countries have fewer homicide rates than we do. A recent paper by the executive director of information of the death penalty shows this"The reasons why countries have abolished the death penalty in increasingnumbers vary. For some nations, it was a broader understanding of human rights. Spain abandoned the last vestiges of its death penalty in 1995, stating that: "the deathpenalty has no place in the general penal system of advanced, civilized societies . . . . What more degrading or afflictive punishment can be imagined than to deprive a personof his life . . . ? "6 Similarly, Switzerland abolished the death penalty because itconstituted as "a flagrant violation of the right to life and dignity. "[5]The one thing everyone is promised in this country, and almost any country is the right to life. In this country it goes a little deeper. We are promised the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as guaranteed by the declaration of independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"[6]There are certain situations that trump the right to life. One of which is murder in self defense. If you are put into a situation in which you must kill to save your life, you are permitted the right to end someones life because of the danger you are in. The person is directly promising or attempting to cause harm to your body and or end your life. This is also called justifiable homicideJustifiable Homicide - This term applies to the blameless killing of a person, such as in self-defense. [7]Killing someone because they did bad, does not fall into this category. We have no right to end someones else s life because they chose to do the same. By doing this it also brings up a majority of other questions. What happens when we kill someone and after they are dead, we find out they are innocent. This is directly relevant to states like Texas where they are trying to put in a express lane. Even in regards to situations that have happened in the past. We could very well have wrongly executed someone based on a wrong verdict. If we have made this mistake before, we can and will make it again. Here is just one circumstance that occurred in 1989"Carlos DeLuna was put to death in December 1989 for a murder in Corpus Christi. But he didn't commit the crime. Today, his case reminds us of the glaring flaws of capital punishment. "[8]Again this is just one situation that stuck out. If it has happened in one, there are probably multiple others that have occured that we are not aware of and that will continue to occur. One study and article shows this"Executing the innocent: Hundreds of people have been released from death row after being found innocent of the crime for which they were convicted. For others, serious doubts about their guilt didn't come to light until it was too late. We cannot risk executing even one innocent person. "[9]One reason this can occur is because of who represents someone. People who can not afford representation will be presented representation. Sadly some people are better at what they do than others, so in a lot of ways money plays a huge factor in who is guilty and who is not. Also referred to as lack of effective counsel. [9]"Lack of effective counsel: Many capital defenders lack the resources and training to provide adequate counsel to their clients. Unfortunately, quality of counsel is a good predictor of who will live and who will face execution. [9]"Contention 3Cruel and Unusual Punishment This speaks for itself but the 8th amendment promises us this. "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. "[10]No matter what type of semantics anyone uses, the death penalty is cruel and unusual. Cruel because it is taking their life, and unusual because it is just that. Commonly killing someone because of a crime is cruel and unusual, not to mention the gas chamber and even injections. "Execution methods: There are significant problems with the five methods currently used to execute people (lethal injection, electrocution, firing squad, hanging and the gas chamber), all of which violate the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment"[9]In ClosingThe death penalty in the past has thought to deter crime and prevent murders from happening. What we now know shows the opposite. Through multiple studies and surveys we can clearly see it does not deter crime enough to keep it implemented. It violates a persons right to life, and risks executing innocent people in the process. It steps on the declaration of independence and the 8th amendment. A vast majority of countries have abolished this for the same reasons, and have seen effective results with other deterrents. We are far to civilized and rational society to keep this type of practice in place[1] . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[2] . http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org...[3] . http://www.emory.edu...[4] . http://www.hrea.org...[5] . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[6] . http://www.archives.gov...[7] . http://thelawdictionary.org...[8] . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[9] . https://www.aclu.org...[10] . http://www.law.cornell.edu...