The United States is one of 55 countries globally with a legal death penalty, according to Amnesty International. As of Mar. 24, 2021, within the US, 27 states had a legal death penalty (though 3 of those states had a moratorium on the punishment’s use).
PRO
Proponents of the death penalty being legal argue that such a harsh penalty is needed for criminals who have committed the worst crimes, that the punishment deters crime, and that the US Supreme Court has upheld the death penalty as constitutional.
CON
Opponents of the death penalty being legal argue that the punishment is cruel and unusual, and, thus, unconstitutional, that innocent people are put to death for crimes they did not commit, and that the penalty is disproportionately applied to people of color.
Read More about This Debate:
ProCon.org, “International Death Penalty Status,” deathpenalty.procon.org, May 19, 2021
ProCon.org, “Should the Death Penalty Be Legal?,” deathpenalty.procon.org, Sep. 20, 2021
ProCon.org, “States with the Death Penalty, Death Penalty Bans, and Death Penalty Moratoriums,” deathpenalty.procon.org, Mar. 24, 2021
2. Life without Parole
Life without Parole (also called LWOP) is suggested by some as an alternative punishment for the death penalty.
PRO
Proponents of replacing the death penalty with life without parole argue that imprisoning someone for the duration of their life is more humane than the death penalty, that LWOP is a more fitting penalty that allows the criminal to think about what they’ve done, and that LWOP reduces the chances of executing an innocent person.
CON
Opponents of replacing the death penalty with life without parole argue that LWOP is just an alternate death penalty and parole should always be a consideration even if the prisoner never earns the privilege. While other opponents argue that life without parole is not a harsh enough punishment for murderers and terrorists.
Read More about This Debate:
ProCon.org, “Should Life without Parole Replace the Death Penalty?,” deathpenalty.procon.org, Sep. 20, 2021
3. Deterrence
One of the main justifications for maintaining a death penalty is that the punishment may prevent people from committing crimes so as to not risk being sentenced to death.
PRO
Proponents who argue that the death penalty is a deterrent to capital crimes state that such a harsh penalty is needed to discourage people from murder and terrorism.
CON
Opponents who argue that the death penalty is not a deterrent to capital crimes state that there is no evidence to support the claim that the penalty is a deterrent.
Read More about This Debate:
ProCon.org, “Does the Death Penalty Deter Crime?,” deathpenalty.procon.org, Sep. 20, 2021
4. Retribution
Retribution in this debate is the idea that the death penalty is needed to bring about justice for the victims, the victims’ families, and/or society at large.
PRO
Proponents who argue that the death penalty is needed as retribution argue that “an eye for an eye” is appropriate, that the punishment should match the crime, and that the penalty is needed as a moral balance to the wrong done by the criminal.
CON
Opponents who argue that the death penalty is not needed as retribution argue that reformative justice is more productive, that innocent people are often killed in the search for retribution, and that “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”
Read More about This Debate:
ProCon.org, “Should the Death Penalty Be Used for Retribution for Victims and/or Society?,” deathpenalty.procon.org, Sep. 20, 2021
5. Victims’ Families
Whether the death penalty can bring about some sort of closure or solace to the victims’ families after a horrible, life-changing experience has long been debated and used by both proponents and opponents of the death penalty.
PRO
Proponents who argue that the death penalty is needed to bring about closure and solace to victims’ families argue that the finality of the death penalty is needed for families to move on and not live in fear of the criminal getting out of prison.
CON
Opponents who argue that the death penalty is needed to bring about closure and solace to victims’ families argue that retributive “justice” does not bring closure for anyone and that the death penalty can take years of media-friendly appeals to enact.
Read More about This Debate:
ProCon.org, “Does the Death Penalty Offer Closure or Solace to Victims’ Families?,” deathpenalty.procon.org, Sep. 20, 2021
6. Methods of Execution
Because the drugs used for lethal injection have become difficult to obtain, some states are turning to other methods of execution. For example, South Carolina recently enacted legislation to allow for the firing squad and electric chair if lethal injection is not available at the time of the execution.
PRO
Proponents of alternate methods of execution argue that the state and federal government have an obligation to carry out the sentence handed down, and that, given the recent botched lethal injection executions, other methods may be more humane.
CON
Opponents of alternate methods of execution argue that we should not be reverting to less humane methods of execution, and that the drug companies’ objection to use of lethal injection drugs should signal a need to abolish the penalty altogether.
Read More about This Debate:
ProCon.org, “Should States Authorize Other Methods of Execution Such as Hanging or the Firing Squad?,” deathpenalty.procon.org, Sep. 20, 2021
7. Innocence
Reports indicate over 150 innocent people have been found not-guilty and exonerated since the death penalty was reinstated in 1973.
PRO
Proponents of abolishing the death penalty because innocent people may be executed argue that humans are fallible and the justice system is flawed, putting more Black and brown people on death row than are guilty of capital crimes, and that we cannot risk executing one innocent person just to carry about retributive “justice.”
CON
Opponents of abolishing the death penalty because innocent people may be executed argue that the fact that death row inmates have been exonerated proves that the checks and balances to prevent innocent people from being executed are in place and working well, almost eliminating the chance that an innocent person will be executed.
Read More about This Debate:
ProCon.org, “Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished Because Innocent People May Be Executed?,” deathpenalty.procon.org, Sep. 20, 2021
8. Morality
Both religious and secular debates have continued about whether it is moral for humans to kill one another, even in the name of justice, and whether executing people makes for a moral and just government.
PRO
Proponents who argue that the death penalty is a moral punishment state that “an eye for an eye” is justified to promote a good and just society than shuns evil.
CON
Opponents who argue that the death penalty is an immoral punishment state that humans should not kill other humans, no matter the reasons, because killing is killing.
Read More about This Debate:
ProCon.org, “Is the Death Penalty Immoral?,” deathpenalty.procon.org, Sep. 20, 2021
9. Medical Professionals’ Participation
With the introduction of lethal injection as execution method, states began asking that medical professionals participate in executions to ensure the injections were administered properly and to provide medical care if the execution were botched.
PRO
Proponents who argue that medical professionals can participate in executions ethically state that doctors and others ensure that the execution is not “cruel or unusual,” and ensure that the person being executed receives medical care during the execution.
CON
Opponents who argue that medical professionals cannot participate in executions ethically state that doctors and others should keep people alive instead of participate in killing, and that the medicalization of execution leads to a false acceptance of the practice.
Read More about This Debate:
ProCon.org, “Is Participation in Executions Ethical for Medical Professionals?,” deathpenalty.procon.org, Sep. 20, 2021
10. Federal Death Penalty
The federal death penalty has only been carried out 16 times since its reinstatement after Furman v. Georgia in 1988: twice in 2001, once in 2003, ten times in 2020, and three times in 2021. Several moratoriums have been put in place by presidents in the interims. Under President Joe Biden, the US Justice Department has enacted a moratorium on the death penalty, reversing President Donald Trump’s policy of carrying out federal executions.
PRO
Proponents of keeping the federal death penalty argue that justice must be carried out to deter crime and offer closure to families, and that the federal government has an obligation to enact the sentences handed down by the courts.
CON
Proponents of banning the federal death penalty argue that the United States federal government should set an example for the states with a ban, and that only a ban will prevent the next president from executing the prisoners on death row.
Read More about This Debate:
ProCon.org, “Most Recent Executions in Each US State,” deathpenalty.procon.org, Aug. 26, 2021
ProCon.org, “Should the US President Reinstate the Federal Death Penalty?,” deathpenalty.procon.org, Sep. 20, 2021
