A majority of States (29) have the death penalty on their books. Similarly, the federal government and the military have the ultimate punishment for the most heinous crimes. In Maryland, a comparison of the cost of capital litigation with and without the death penalty for years concluded that a death penalty case “costs about 42% more than a non-death penalty case.” In 1988 and 1989, the Kansas legislature voted against reintroducing the death penalty after being told that its reintroduction would cost more than $11 million in the first year.59 Florida, with one of the most populous death row in the country, estimated that the actual cost of each execution is about $3.2 million. or about six times the cost of a life sentence. (David von Drehle, “Capital Punishment in Paralysis,” Miami Herald, July 10, 1988) Mr. Purkey was used during the George W. The Bush administration and its condemnation and condemnation have been vigorously defended throughout the Obama administration. The judge who handed down the death sentence against Mr Honken, Mark Bennett, said that although he is generally opposed to the death penalty, he would not lose sleep over Mr Honken`s execution. Global support for abolition was highlighted by the South African Constitutional Court in 1995, which ruled out the death penalty as an “inhumane” punishment. Between 1989 and 1995, two dozen other countries abolished the death penalty for all crimes. Since 1995, 43 others have abolished it. Overall, 71% of the world`s countries have abolished the death penalty by law or in practice; Only 58 out of 197 keep it.
 Glenn L. Pierce & Michael L. Radelet, Death Sentencing in East Baton Rouge Parish, 1990-2008, 71 La. Rev. L. 647, 671 (2011), available at www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/PierceRadeletStudy.pdf.  See ibid.; Carlos DeLuna Case: The Fight to Prove an Innocent Man Was Executed, PBS Newshour, May 24, 2012, www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june12/deathpenalty_05-24.html. Texas was ready to execute Duane Buck on September 15, 2011. Mr. Buck was sentenced to death by a jury told by an experienced psychologist he was rather dangerous because he was African-American. The Supreme Court stayed the case, but Mr. Buck has not yet received the new sentence demanded by the judiciary.
“There are empirical assumptions that the death penalty may be morally imperative, not in retaliation, but to prevent innocent people from being killed. In doing so, we propose the possibility that States should be obliged to retain the option of the death penalty. The death penalty violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. It is applied randomly – and discriminatory. It is disproportionately imposed on those whose victims are white, perpetrators who are people of color, and those who are poor and uneducated, concentrated in certain geographical areas of the country. “The death penalty is not only an atrocity, it also taints the history of the world`s most powerful democracy. Doctors should not be in the business of killing. Those who participate in this barbaric act are shameful examples of how a profession has allowed its values to be corrupted by state violence.
Fairness in capital punishment requires, first and foremost, a competent lawyer for the defendant. But “about 90 percent of death row inmates could not afford to hire a lawyer when they were tried.”) What death row defendants have in common is that they are characterized by poverty, lack of strong social roots in the community, and insufficient legal representation before the courts or on appeal. As Judge William O. Douglas noted in Furman, “Our chronicles are sought in vain for the execution of any member of the wealthy strata of this society” (408 US 238). Today, the whole of Western Europe has abolished the death penalty, either by law or in practice. In Britain, it was abolished in 1971 (except in cases of high treason); The France abolished it in 1981. Canada abolished it in 1976. The United Nations General Assembly reaffirmed in a formal resolution that it is desirable worldwide “to progressively limit the number of offences punishable by the death penalty, in order to wish for the abolition of the death penalty”. By mid-1995, eighteen countries had ratified the Sixth Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits the death penalty in peacetime.  See Pierre Desert, Second Optional Protocol: Frequently Asked Questions, World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, June 27, 2008, www.worldcoalition.org/Second-Optional-Protocol-Frequently-Asked-Questions.html; Pierre Desert, Second Optional Protocol: The Only Global Treaty Aiming to the Abolition of the Death Penalty, World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, 24 June 2008, www.worldcoalition.org/UN-Protocol-the-only-global-treaty-aiming-at-the-abolition-of-the-death-penalty.html; Second Optional Protocol, note 21 above. Moral: So, is the death penalty good or bad? To answer this question, I will ask uncomfortable questions that might be difficult, but it is a difficult topic. Does all human life have value? Does all human life in itself have the same value? Is it always wrong to kill? Some may say yes to all these things, but is that really the case? Some say that killing a murderer makes us murderers, but is that really the case? When someone maliciously breaks into your home, you not only have an absolute right, but also a moral imperative to defend your home, your estate.
They must either use force or face the consequences. Most will defend themselves and their families. So, in this scenario, we developed the idea that a human life, the intruder who tries to murder you or your family, has no or less value. Other examples could be a mass shooting and how to stop the shooter immediately. What to do? Certainly, immediate measures to prevent further harm are one thing, but what about a prisoner who is already in the care of the state? I have listed the above examples only to show that not all human lives are equally valuable. “The abolition of the death penalty is a matter of justice. It is a question of mercy. It is about ending this nation`s dark history of lynching and slavery. It is about making it clear that our government should not have the power to end a life. We must build a fair criminal justice system based on compassion, the rule of law and justice. We must break the cycles of death, devastation and trauma that have shattered black and brown communities like mine. The Supreme Court declared the death penalty constitutional.
The 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution contain explicit consent to the death penalty: a person cannot be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process.” Yet a majority of Americans reasonably support the death penalty in appropriate cases, believing it to be constitutional, despite its imperfections. Moreover, the death penalty could only be defended for the crime of murder and not for any of the many other crimes that were often subjected to this type of punishment (rape, kidnapping, espionage, treason, drug trafficking). Few supporters of the death penalty are prepared to systematically stick to the narrow framework of reprisals. In any case, execution is more than a punishment inflicted in retaliation for the murder of a life. As Nobel laureate Albert Camus wrote: “For there to be equivalence, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date on which it would cause him a terrible death, and who had left him at his mercy for months from that moment. You do not encounter such a monster in your private life. (Reflections on the Guillotine, in Resistance, Rebellion and Death 1960) But for the death penalty to be applied fairly, we must strive to ensure that the criminal justice system functions as intended.