Dorothy Von Ahnen Period 1 Individual and Society Death penalty essay November 7, 2011 The issue of the

death penalty is extremely controversial. There are pros and cons to the morality, constitutionality, and deterrence, of it. The death penalty is the sentence of execution for murder and some other capital crimes (serious crimes, especially murder, which are punishable by death). Congress or any state legislature for murder and other capital crimes may prescribe the death penalty, or capital punishment. Crimes punishable by the death penalty are things like murder, treason on the federal level, and terrorism. People that are against the death penalty believe that it is immoral, because these people believe that the state/federal government deserve the right to kill someone. They also believe that it is against the constitution, William J. Brennan said, "Death is... an unusually severe punishment, unusual in its pain, in its finality, and in its enormity... The fatal constitutional infirmity in the punishment of death is that it treats 'members of the human race as nonhumans, as objects to be toyed with and discarded. [It is] thus inconsistent with the fundamental premise of the Clause that even the vilest criminal remains a human being possessed of common human dignity.' [quoting himself from Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 257 (1972)] As such it is a penalty that 'subjects the individual to a fate forbidden by the principle of civilized treatment guaranteed by the [Clause].' [quoting C.J. Warren from Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101 (1958)] I therefore would hold, on that ground alone, that death is today a cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Clause... I would set aside

the death sentences imposed... as violative of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments." Which is saying that the framers did not believe in capitial punishment, however, it depends on how you read it. Finally they believe that the death penalty does not deter, since crime still happens, and crime rates can be higher in states with the death penalty than in states without it. On the contrary, those who oppose the constitution say that it is moral, due to the old belief of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. This saying means that what you do to someone, you deserve to have done to you. They also say that it is constitutional, because they interpret the constitution as saying, an eye for an eye. Finally they believe that it does deter crime because less people commit crimes punishable by death knowing that the crime is punishable by death. They do not want to risk their life for a dumb reason. My opinion on the death penalty is neutral. Personally, I am for it in some cases, but against it in others. For example, I was for it in the Casey Anthony trial, but not for it in other cases. I believe that some people deserve to serve a life sentence in jail for their crimes, if they are so severe. My beliefs go back an fourth on the subject, making it circumstantial and about as controversial about the subject itself. I wish I could give you a straight I am against, or I am for, but I cannot. To conclude, the death penalty is extremely controversial based on interpretation. There are pros and cons to the morality, constitutionality, and deterrence, of it. There will never be a settled answer to such a subject, which is why it is put to the state legislature and not federal. It is extremely hard to satisfy everyones needs with such a topic.