Should the US Abolish the Death Penalty?

We teach our children at a young age that two wrongs do not make a right, a simple concept used to rebuke unethical conduct as a response to another's transgression. So why is it that still today grown adults possess the ignorance that killing is ever an acceptable notion?

The death penalty dates back as far back as Eighteenth Century B.C. and continues to be used today. The immoral nature of such punishment makes it unacceptable and should not be used. If we punish an individual for murder by killing them, we are no different from that individual. By using the death penalty, we are demonstrating that problems can be solved by killing.

Not only is the death penalty morally incorrect, it also poses problems for the US government yearly. According to OADP, in 2000 a fiscal impact summary from the Oregon Department of Administrative Services stated that the Oregon Judicial Department alone would save $2.3 million annually if the death penalty were eliminated. It is estimated that total prosecution and defense costs to the state and counties equal $9 million per year. Why are we paying money out of our pockets for people to die?

When we asked former Marine and Sandwich High School English teacher Scott Childress what he thought about the death penalty, he stated, “What if someone is executed then later they are found innocent? You can’t do anything about this injustice because they’re dead. How much money is that worth? There’s no going back on that decision. You can not bring someone back to life.”

His statement is further supported by OADP with historical evidence: “Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in the United States in 1976, 138 innocent men and women have been released from death row, including some who came within minutes of execution.” Do we really want to deny someone the right to their innocence and life?

SHS senior Maddie Oakley’s opinion differs from Mr. Childress’: “In certain cases it may be the best decision, depending on what they did -like if someone kills a lot of people - extreme cases like that.” The jury in Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s case must decide if he should be executed or not. His guilt is not in question, and many people feel the same as Oakley concerning this particular case.

While the death penalty in Massachusetts was abolished in 1984, it still applies to US federal cases such as Tsarnaev’s. When considering the negative aspects of the penalty, I feel that more states should abolish it. Not only will they save money and protect innocent lives, but they will be morally correct. What separates us from murderers if we in turn kill them?