The Death Penalty

Giving the sentence of the death penalty is a just punishment for a very cruel
crime a person has committed. For example, when a person decides to take the life of
another human being, would it not only be fair if the same person that took the life of
another person receives the death penalty. Why should Americans pay for their
imprisonment for a lifetime after the heartless crime this person has committed? I do not
believe that this would go against the constitution and be deemed cruel and unusual
punishment if the crime that has been committed been committed is extremely cruel and
there is indisputable evidence that the harsh crime was committed by the person at trial.
As of right now, the crimes that can result in receiving the death penalty are
treason, terrorism, federal murder, large scale drug-trafficking, and attempting to kill a
witness, juror, or court officer. Right now, America should keep the death penalty, but
only use it in cases of murder. Anyone that takes another person's life should be able to
receive the death penalty. Surely not everyone that commits murder would be convicted
with the death penalty, but if the judge considers it necessary, it would only be fair for
this person to receive the death penalty. It could end up giving a sense of relief to the
family of the victim knowing that the criminal that took the life of their beloved family
member got the punishment they deserved. Why should the family of the victim pay for
the life in prison the criminal will get? Some people believe that capital punishment
cases are more expensive than life without parole case, and they are right in the sense
that a capital punishment case will be more expensive upfront. However, after the death
sentence has been performed it is done, but a life without parole case will be costly until

the inmate dies and almost always will eventually end up costing millions of more
dollars than a capital punishment case.
Also, as America should keep the death penalty, there should have to be
indisputable evidence that the criminal has committed the crime that is worthy of
receiving the death penalty. First, the cases of murder that are worthy of receiving the
death penalty should have to be in the first degree: intentional manslaughter that was
wilful and predetermined; cases that involves involuntary murder in the second degree
should not be convicted with the death penalty. Also, In recent studies, researchers
have concluded that about 4.1 percent of people convicted with the death penalty have
been wrongly accused of the crime. Out of this 4.1 percent more than twice of the
inmates wrongly convicted have been sentenced to death than have been exonerated.
This is a problem that the states and federal government needs to change because
there should be no innocent people should be sentenced to death. There should be
unquestionable evidence that a certain person has committed the crime or else the
death penalty should not be given, and if the court system will prove the person guilty,
there should be no problem with wrongly accused cases.
In conclusion, America should keep the death penalty with few revisions to it.
There needs to be no issues with wrong convictions of capital punishment; so, the
needs to be highly indisputable evidence that a person has committed the crime. Also,
as of right now crimes such as treason, espionage, drug trafficking, etc. can be
sentence the death penalty, but America should only give the death penalty if the crime
involves voluntary manslaughter or murder in the first degree because it is only fair that

this criminal that has willfully decided to take the life of another human being should
have the chance to be convicted with the death penalty.