Should Capital Punishment be abolished?

Essay by MichElle_06High School, 12th gradeA, March 2006

download word file, 2 pages 0.0

Capital Punishment

Death is the one penalty that makes error irreversible and should not be considered as the ultimate punishment for inmates. Capital Punishment, also known as the death penalty, has been proven statistically to be an awful and wrongful death to many who have been executed; therefore, execution by lethal injection or anything else should be an illegal crime and should be outlawed.

Statistics have opened the door to the many and ugly sides of the death penalty. The possibility of the wrong men or women being put on death row always exists. That should be enough reason to stop this unjust crime but unfortunately it is not. For every seven executions one other prisoner on death row is found innocent. So why put someone else's life in the hands of something that has been proven to be wrong 26% of the time?

Another fact is that seventy-four men have been acquitted and freed from death row over the past twenty-five years.

All of these men were either being falsely accused by eyewitnesses or DNA. Later, they were found not guilty of the crime although having already spent at least 10 years in prison. It is not fair to all others who have not yet been found innocent and could possibly be face to face with the electric chair or be given a lethal injection. One successful transform is that twelve states have already abolished the death penalty from their legal system. The last message we are trying to send to those facing capital punishment is, had they committed the crime elsewhere, in another state, they would be let off with a much lighter justice.

DNA has set free more than 100 Americans. As statistics sated, out of 18,000 cases, DNA has proven 4,500 not guilty. In seventy percent of all cases, it has been found that police discard all of the DNA evidence before an investigation even begins. DNA plays if not the most, one of the most important roles when the situation arouses to decide between life or death. Without the DNA it makes it almost impossible to reveal the real criminal, resulting in a wrongful conviction. As I stated before, the 26% rate error exist due to DNA inaccuracy; for that reason I ask, why is it okay for us to decide the fate of the blamed based on only our judgment and what is shown to us.

False convictions occur more often than we recognize. One of every seven cases found involves faulty eyewitness identification. One out of seven involves false confessions. One thing we must consider is revenge. A countless amount of more than 80 cases are recorded where an eyewitness comes forward with false accusations in order to get revenge for some past grudge and then is later found unhelpful toward the case. About a quarter involve people with mild retardation who often try to hide limitations by guessing "right" answers when questioned by police. Many of these eyewitnesses are pressured and/or tricked into making up a whole story believing that it is the truth themselves or identifying someone who they may not have ever seen before. We should not let other peoples poor judgment get in the way of freeing the innocent and sentencing the delinquent.

In most cases statistics have proven that DNA and eyewitnesses are not always 100% correct. Statistics, DNA, and false eyewitnesses are all some of several things that may gowrong in a conviction. The judgment made could affect, not only, the blamed but their family as well for the rest of their lives.