THE DEATH PENALTY

The Death Penalty is Just and Fairly Applied

The Death Penalty is Just and Fairly Applied

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to enlighten and explore the concept of the death penalty. This is an argumentative paper that will provide the authentic evidences to support the arguments that favor the death penalty and the ones who refute it. This paper will propose and enlighten diverse scenarios from the history and present time in order to analyze the fact that whether the death penalty is fair or it is just the sentence violating the human rights. The death sentences have been utilized throughout history. At common law, death was imposed for all convicted murderers. Recognizing that the culpability of convicted murderers varied, in 1794, Pennsylvania became the first state to abolish capital punishment for most murders. The state mandated death for only those killings that were "willful, deliberate and premeditated." Every other state followed Pennsylvania's lead. Jurors balked, however, at being forced to impose the death in cases that were inappropriate for capital punishment. As a result, they engaged in jury nullification by simply refusing to convict the defendant.

Since the 1990s, there has been a growing concern about the use of the death penalty in the United States. In some recent decisions, the Supreme Court has narrowed the use of the death penalty. In the early twenty-first century, the Court reversed prior decisions in two significant cases. In Atkins v. Virginia, the Court held that it violates the constitution to execute mentally retarded individuals, and in Roper v. Simmons, it held that it is unconstitutional to execute juveniles who commit their crimes while younger than eighteen years of age. In both of those cases, the Court reasoned that the Eighth Amendment required it to consider "evolving standards of decency" in American society, including recent political and public opinion changes, resulting in the Court reversing prior decisions.

Thesis Statement

The death penalty sentences are often opposed by different human rights perspectives. There are a lot of people who believe that the death penalty is fair and just; however, other believe that the death penalty violates the human rights. According to different studies, the culprits should be given a chance to improve themselves rather than sentencing them for the death.

Diverse Procedures of the Death Penalty

Unlike the high level of deference given to the states in imposing noncapital punishments, the Supreme Court has actively developed detailed procedural requirements that must be satisfied for the death penalty legislation to withstand scrutiny. Death penalty jurisprudence, divided into two eras: "pre-Furman" and "post-Furman". A national four-year hiatus on capital punishment followed Furman; but, in that period, thirty-five states and Congress reinstated the death penalty in new statutes that attempted to meet the Supreme Court's procedural requirements (O'Shea, 1999, 89). The Supreme Court again addressed the constitutionality of the death penalty in 1976, in Gregg v. Georgia. These clear processes satisfied the Court, although Justices Brennan and Marshall vigorously dissented, arguing that the death penalty is per se ...