Death Penalty: An Ethical Perspective

Image from: https://www.daily-mail.co.zm/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/hanging-sentence2.jpg

Introduction

Death penalty is a government-sanctioned practice in which a person is executed as a punishment for a crime. Death penalty has been practiced and established as a punishment for crimes throughout mankind’s long history, from the Code of King Hammurabi of Babylon in 18th century BC, to the Draconian Code of Athens in 7th Century BC which made death the penalty for every crime committed. The most infamous execution written in the pages of our history was the crucifixion of Jesus Christ by the Romans around 29 AD. Another notorious death execution was about 399 BC when the Greek philosopher Socrates was mandated to drink poison for heresy and corruption of youth (Reggio, n.d., paras. 1-3).

Since time immemorial, death penalty has been used to deter and prevent crimes; yet crimes persist. Currently, the debate about death penalty revolves on its issues, particularly its inaccuracy and unfairness. Those who vehemently oppose death penalty argue that some mistakes are fixable, whereas wrongful convictions and executions of the innocent are not. Since the advent of DNA testing that exonerated many death row inmates, the debate about death penalty has escalated to a political pandemonium. Many people, including previous supporters of the capital punishment, started questioning the fairness, validity, and morality of death penalty system. The opponents attack death penalty with a wide variety of arguments such as right and respect to life, affront to human dignity, and unfair administration of the capital punishment. They insist that the risk of taking innocent lives outweighs the benefits of death penalty. Living in a modern and civilized society, we pride ourselves that we have abolished the unfair, inhumane, and unjust imposition of the death penalty – but have we?

This report will extensively and comprehensively examine the current issues of the death penalty based on the various empirical studies and surveys conducted by the academic and scientific community. This report will also evaluate the ethical arguments for and against the death penalty. Finally, the report will provide an ethical analysis of the empirical data and the arguments presented pertaining to this topic. The report will employ the first three components of a procedure-based method to resolve the ethical dilemma of the death penalty. This involves fact-finding, issue identification, and identification of the stakeholders. This will ensure that the most ethical resolution for the dilemma is achieved. The scope of the report is limited to death penalty only and does not include the discussion of other related topics such as extrajudicial punishment and honor killing.

Death Penalty: Fact-finding and Issue Identification

To fully understand the impact of death penalty, it is imperative to examine the facts and scrutinize the empirical studies pertaining to the capital punishment. In this part of the report, the death penalty practices around the world are examined: the execution of the juvenile offenders and the drug offenders; and the methods of execution. Furthermore, the important aspects related to death penalty are evaluated such as its effectiveness as deterrence to crimes, the financial costs associated with the capital punishment, and the errors and the arbitrariness plaguing the death penalty system.

Juvenile Offenders and Drug Offenders

One of the most disturbing aspects of death penalty is the growing number of juvenile offenders who are consigned to the gallows. This is especially prevalent in the Middle East wherein the Islamic law is unforgiving. Between 2005 and 2015, there were 73 executions of juvenile offenders in Iran. Juvenile offenders are those who were younger than 18 at the time of the crime, whose most known executions were for murder, followed by rape, drug-related offenses and the vague and broad national security-related offense of moharebeh or “enmity against God.” When questioned by the international bodies, the Iranian governments and parliaments resorted to many techniques to distract attention from the practice. They either deny it or distort the reality. Moreover, there is a lack of awareness of rights to a retrial as many juvenile offenders on death rows have low levels of literacy, low status, and few connections. The Iranian authorities do not inform them of their rights to a retrial, and those who had been granted a retrial have been resentenced to death (Amnesty International, 2016, pp. 6-10).

In more than 30 countries around the world, drug-related offenses are punishable by death penalty. This offense can vary from trafficking heroin to being caught carrying a small amount of marijuana. In some countries such as Iran, Malaysia, and Singapore, death penalty is mandatory for such offense, despite the lack of strong evidence, mitigating circumstances, and other factors. In 2015, China, Indonesia, Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, the United Arab Emirates and Viet Nam have all sentenced people to death for drug-related crimes (Pinto, 2015, paras. 1-3).

Methods of Execution

The methods of execution for the capital punishment have evolved over time: the guillotine in the 17th century; hanging; shooting; electric chair; gas chamber; and so forth. The latest medical development to deliver a humane execution was lethal injection. This was an attempt to reduce the cruelty of executions by replacing one execution method with another seemingly more humane one. However, the lethal injection has not been as painless and quick as promised. In 1996, it took 69 minutes for Tommie J. Smith to be pronounced dead (Welch, 2003, p. 24). In 1997, China authorized the lethal-injection execution. The physicians were responsible for developing the techniques, and there were reports that different chemical mixes were used in the executions. There were allegations that the executed prisoners in China were used as a source of organs. In Indonesia, 14 people have been executed by firing squad, all for drug-related offenses in 2015. In Saudi Arabia, the execution is typically carried out by the decapitation: people are beheaded in public (Pinto, 2015, paras. 4-7).

Death Penalty as Deterrence

From January to September 20, 2015, there had been at least 829 executions in Iran, 571 had been for drug-related offenses. The disadvantaged groups such as foreigners, poor people, ethnic minorities, are most likely to be accused, sentenced and executed. According to an expert at Iran’s Centre for Strategic Research, the death penalty has not succeeded in reducing drug trafficking in the country (Pinto, 2015, para. 5). An analysis showed that the U.S. states without death penalty have consistently lower murder rates from the period of 1990 to 2014. The murder rate differences between the death-penalty states and non-death penalty states were staggering: 44 percent in 1996 and 2003; 46 percent in 2005; 36 percent in 2002. The analysis was based on FBI’s “Crime in the United States” reports (Cooper & Kamin, n.d., para. 1).

A report by the National Research Council showed that the studies that claimed that the capital punishment has a deterrent effect on homicide rates are fundamentally flawed. The studies do not specify the noncapital sanction components for the punishment of homicide. The studies also use incomplete or implausible models of potential murderers’ perceptions of and response to the death penalty. The existing studies are based on unverifiable assumptions in its identification of the deterrent effects of death penalty on homicides (Nagins & Peppers, 2012, p. 4)

In a survey conducted to the former and present top criminologists, the majority of these experts do not believe that the capital punishment deters murder rates. The results indicated that only a small number, 10 percent or less, believes the deterrence justification for the death penalty. The overwhelming majority of the experts agreed that the death penalty never has been, is not, and never could be superior to long prison sentences as a deterrent to criminal violence (Radelet & Lacock, 2009, pp. 489-90).

The Cost of the Death Penalty

Many Americans support death penalty because they believe that it is cheaper to execute a condemned prisoner than to imprison him or her for life. Indeed, some capital jurors report that one of their reasons for imposing a death sentence is the higher cost of life imprisonment (Costanzo & White, 1994, p. 9). This notion seems logical. By executing condemned prisoners, years or decades of cost would be avoided. However, this belief is incorrect.

The Urban Institute studied the lifetime costs of all homicides that are eligible to receive the death penalty in Maryland between 1978 and 1999. The study found that an average capital-eligible case in which prosecutors did not seek the death penalty cost taxpayers more than $1.1 million, including $870,000 in prison costs and $250,000 in costs of adjudication. A capital-eligible case in which prosecutors unsuccessfully sought the death penalty cost $1.8 million, $700,000 more than a comparable case in which the death penalty was not sought. Prison costs are about $950,000, and the cost of adjudication is $850,000, more than three times higher than in cases which were not capitally prosecuted (Roman et al, 2008, p. 4). In Texas, a death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. The most comprehensive study in the U.S. found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of sentencing murderers to life imprisonment. The majority of those costs occur at the trial level. The costs are similar in other states such as California, Kansas, Florida, Tennessee, etc. (“Facts about the death penalty,” 2016, p. 4).

Capital trials are more complex and time-consuming than other criminal trials at every phase of the legal process—pretrial, jury selection, trial, and appeals. A competently conducted capital trial is preceded by a thorough investigation of both the crime and the offender. Due to the added dimension of the penalty phase, pretrial investigators attempt to locate and interview anyone who may be able to offer testimony that can serve as mitigating evidence. The personal history of the defendant is often painstakingly reconstructed in order to explain the defendant’s crime (Costanzo & White, 1994, p. 10). Thus, the greatest costs of the death penalty trial are incurred is during the investigative and trial phases, not in post-conviction proceedings. Even if all appeals were abolished, the death penalty would still be more expensive than life sentences. This high cost of a death-penalty system diverts the country’s resources from pursuing other important measures such as education and rehabilitation, crime prevention, drug treatment programs, mental health treatment, and so forth (“Death Penalty Cost,” n.d., paras. 2-3).

The Errors and Arbitrariness of Death Penalty

One of the pivotal forces that change the perception of the capital punishment was the Liebman study, a twenty-three-year study on error rates in capital cases. The findings of the study were staggering. Out of the 28 states studied, only 2 states did not err at least fifty percent of the time during the three stages of judicial review in a capital case. Nationwide, courts found serious, reversible error in nearly 7 of every 10 capital cases that were fully reviewed. Serious errors undermining the reliability of a finding of guilt, or sentence of death, occurred in more than two out of every three death penalty cases. The Liebman study found that serious error was largely attributable to several factors. Incompetent defense and prosecutorial misconduct account for more than half of the errors in capital cases. The remaining errors are the result of judicial bias, legal error, or bias among jurors (White, 2001, p. 1267-69).

A study in California found that those who committed homicide against whites were 3 times more likely to be sentenced to death than those who killed blacks, and over 4 times more likely than those who killed Hispanic (Pierce & Radelet, 2005, p. 41). A study in Louisiana showed that 30 percent of the blacks convicted of killing whites were sentenced to death, followed by 12 percent of the whites convicted of killing whites and 8.3 percent of the blacks convicted of killing blacks. Furthermore, the results indicated that the odds of receiving a death sentence in a white victim case are on average 97.3 percent higher than are the odds of a death sentence in a black victim case (Pierce & Radelet, 2011, p. 647). This shows how race plays a major role in death penalty decisions. This shows a pattern of evidence of racial disparities in the sentencing of the capital punishment. Prosecutors are more likely to seek a death sentence when the race of the victim is white and are less likely to seek a death sentence when the victim is African-American.

In 2000, Illinois Governor Ryan set up a commission to investigate the wrongful convictions of 13 death row inmates who were ultimately exonerated by DNA evidence. The result of the study was astounding: 33 people who were convicted and sent to death row were served in defense by attorneys who had either been disbarred or suspended from the practice of law. Moreover, there were 35 African Americans sent to death row by all white juries (Films On Demand, 2000). This raises concerns about the quality of legal defense provided to the accused. Death penalty is fraught with inequities and racial discrimination. The death penalty system is capricious and arbitrary. Its implementation is akin to winning or losing in the natural lottery.

Arguments about Death Penalty

Despite the overwhelming evidence of its errors and ineffectiveness in deterring crimes, death penalty remains one of the most hotly debated topics today.

Arguments against Death Penalty

One of the most controversial political figures on the death penalty is the former Illinois governor George Ryan who was a previous staunch supporter of the capital punishment. In 2000, he declared a moratorium on executions in Illinois due to the climbing numbers death row inmates who were exonerated by DNA evidence. He argued that he could not support a system which, in its administration, has proven so full of errors. He surmised that the state is taking innocent lives. Ryan stated that “until I can be sure with moral certainty that no innocent man or woman is facing a lethal injection, no one will meet that fate” (as cited in Films On Demand, 2000).

In 1767, the Italian jurist Cesare Beccaria theorized that there was no justification for the taking of life by the state. He said that the death penalty was a war of a whole nation against a citizen, whose destruction they consider as necessary or useful to the general good. However, he described death penalty as a “momentary spectacle, and therefore a less efficacious method of deterring others, than the continued example of a man deprived of his liberty” (as cited in Reggio, n.d., para. 12).

Bedau used the minimal invasion principle in his argument for the abolition of death penalty. He opined that the government’s invasion of an individual’s privacy, liberty and autonomy is only justifiable when there is no less invasive method in achieving important social goal. The death penalty is more invasive and fatally more severe that a life sentence. To achieve valid social goals, long-term imprisonment is sufficient as an invasion of individual liberty, privacy, and autonomy. Hence, death penalty should be abolished (2002, p. 4). The government has a duty to use the least restrictive means to achieve social goal. If a person’s autonomy and liberty are to be violated, it must be because the goal is of extreme importance and because there is no other way to deter any potential harm.

The allegation that murderers will kill again is fallacious. Not all murderers kill again. Some murderers might commit homicide, later on, however there is no logical way to predict which convicted murderers are more inclined to recidivate. Bedau (2012, p. 6) stated that “the only way to prevent recidivism would be to execute every convicted murderer, a policy that is politically unavailable and morally indefensible.”

Arguments in Favor of Death Penalty

Schoenfeld defended capital punishment by arguing that the Law of Talon is deeply embedded into human nature. The legal system must respect this natural human desire by imposing capital punishment when appropriate. To deny this human nature would risk the collapse of social life into the chaos of vendetta and private wars of vengeance. He also used psychoanalytic theory to assert that those who oppose death penalty have failed to develop a normal identity. This deficit supposedly causes them to identify unconsciously with the defendant rather than with the victim in a capital trial (as cited in Watson, Ross, Morris, 2002, p. 427).

The support for capital punishment comes from the belief that the death penalty is legitimate under the retributive justice. It focuses on the punishment rather than the rehabilitation. This justification suggests that murderers should be executed for retributive reasons: murderers deserved to die; the retributive effects of life imprisonment are not enough for taking a life. Bedaue eloquently explained that the system of punishment is inherently retributive in nature. It is designed to apply to all the guilty ones. It deliberately imposes hardship and deprives wrongdoers of their liberty. Hence, life imprisonment for murder is just as retributive as the death penalty for murder, without imitating the crime (2002, p. 7).

The Law of the Talon, which comes from the Latin words lex talionis, has been the poignant argument of the proponents of death penalty. It follows the extreme principle of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life (Rossel, 1992, p. 164). However, if the moral laws are applied and we treat everyone equally, then we should punish all criminals and offenders in similar fashion to their crimes. If the Law of Talon is applied equally, how do we punish the plunderers, thieves, and swindlers? Bedau surmises that this proposition essentially begs the question: “why do murderers deserve to die when rapists do not deserve to be raped?” (2002, p. 7). Hence, creating a systematic punishment for crimes by relying on lex talionis is implausible. An attempt to make an exception in the case of murder as deserving of death penalty is irrational and unethical.

The book of Exodus [21:23-24] states that “the penalty shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth.” However, this plainly describes the revenge common among beasts. Putting simple justice into everyday human terms is not that simple (Rossel, 1992, p. 164). Watson et al (2002, p. 428) opined that the humanity evolved an ability to achieve social solidarity through the discharge of pent-up communal violence against a scapegoat victim. Consequently, the state executions look a lot like primitive religious rituals that use human sacrifice to help consolidate the group identity.

Ethical Decision-Making

Numerous studies resulted in conclusive evidence that capital punishment does not deter crimes. Moreover, there is undeniable evidence that the rate of heinous crimes such as murders is typically higher in death-penalty states than in non-death penalty jurisdictions. From this empirical data, it can be gathered that instead of acting as a deterrent to crimes and murders, death penalty incites offenders to act and commit crimes. Under Aristotle’s ethics of purpose, a thing is good when it fulfills its function. Death penalty’s function is first and foremost to deter murders and crimes. If death penalty does not do what it is supposed to do, then it cannot be considered morally good (McLachlan, 2009, p. 42).

Socrates and Plato’s healthy soul theory emphasizes the balance between the rational, irrational and spirited elements. The rational element is our intellect. The irrational element is composed of our physiological needs such as hunger, thirst, and lust. The spirited element is composed of our emotions such as angry, envy, and hatred. A balanced soul is one in which the physical appetites and the emotions are ruled by reasons (McLachlan, 2009, p. 38). However, death penalty is often emotion-driven. Its administration is often a result of vengeance, and the compulsion to punish the offenders. This is especially true with the juries who are often persuaded by emotions to send the accused to death row. In the past, many were sentenced to death penalty by vengeful juries who were manipulated by overzealous prosecutors. In a heinous crime, the jury is often compelled to make someone pay for the violent crime done to the victim. As the evidence revealed, many innocent people were already found guilty, sentenced to die, only to be exonerated later on.

Thomas Hobbes’ enlightened self-interest theory states that the natural condition of men is constant conflict and that moral and legal structures must be imposed, in order to escape constant chaos and anarchy. The enlightened self-interest theory states that disagreements should be submitted to arbitrators and that judges should be impartial (McLachlan, 2009, pp. 109-10). In death penalty trials, there was overwhelming evidence that judges and juries are not entirely impartial. John Rawls’ Contractarianism ethics encourages the use of the theoretical veil of ignorance to come up with an ethical decision. It asks us to imagine ourselves just before birth, before we know anything about ourselves or our circumstances or even our personal inclination and preference (McLachlan, 2009, p. 113). Using this approach, if we do not know that we could potentially be facing conviction and execution, wrongful or not, would we still favor death penalty? It is easy not to object to death penalty when it is happening to someone else. Without knowing that we would potentially be on the other side of the court, wrongly accused, we would not support death penalty.

The utilitarianism focuses on the possible outcomes of the actions. It states that actions should maximize the benefits and minimize the harm to individuals and to the society as whole. It emphasizes the greatest good and happiness for the greatest number of people. In analyzing consequences, the utilitarian approach considers both the immediate impact to everyone involved, as well as the indirect and far-reaching results for the society as a whole (McLachlan, 2009, p. 78). One of the greatest arguments of the supporters of the death penalty is that it deters heinous crimes in the society. However, the empirical evidence suggested that death penalty does not do what it is intended to do – to deter murderers, rapists, and other criminals from harming and victimizing others. Hence, based on the utilitarianism, the death penalty is not ethical because it does not result in the greater happiness for the greatest number of people.

The death penalty is an ethical dilemma afflicting the society as a whole. How do we balance justice with fairness? How we ensure that we do not send the innocent people to death rows? Canada does not have death penalty, yet it still concerns the Canadian citizens. As human beings, we are all connected. What is happening to others affects us all, either directly or indirectly. Hence, we are all stakeholders in this ethical dilemma of societal significance. Collectively, we can make a change. It starts with informing others of the errors, flaws, and arbitrariness of the death penalty. By raising awareness, we can slowly change our society’s perception of the death penalty. The change in our individual attitudes will inevitably change the social conventions. Laws will eventually reflect the attitudes of the majority (McLachlan, 2009, p. 237).

Conclusion

The sad reality about the death penalty is that it is still used on juvenile offenders and drug offenders in other countries. In some countries, the methods of execution are still barbaric and inhumane–a stark contrast to our presumably highly civilized society. Those who are sentenced to die are usually the poor ones who cannot afford to retain competent lawyers. The DNA testing that exonerated many inmates proved that innocent people were sent to death rows. The innumerable studies demonstrated alarming facts: errors, biases, prejudices, injustice continuously plague the death penalty trials; penalty disproportionately applied to non-white defendants. Death penalty is discriminatory and is used mostly against the poor, minorities, and the non-white. Under the utilitarian approach, the high cost of capital punishment means that death penalty is not ethical because it does not bring the greatest good and happiness for the greatest number of people. Moreover, the taxpayers are burdened with the costly death penalty system, and their needs for better access to education, peace and order, drug treatment, public health are not prioritized. The death penalty system squanders the scarce resources. A life imprisonment does not.

Since judges and juries are human beings, they are not infallible. They could potentially make mistakes. While some mistakes can be rectified, the execution of the innocent is fatal and irreversible. We cannot place out faith in a system that is fraught with errors and inequities. Hence, life imprisonment is ethically superior to death penalty.

Justice seems a simple idea: offenders must be punished in proportion to their crimes. To seek revenge is only natural, we are only human. But ethics dictates that as human beings, we should not be ruled by our emotions. Man is both a rational and irrational being. The occurrences of violence crimes often derail our senses and deprive us of our rational thinking and reasoning. Death penalty is a form of vengeance, only sanctioned by the government. And vengeance is an unquenchable thirst. It is a bottomless pit; it could never be truly satisfied. The victory of our legal system is not in bringing justice, but in bringing justice with morality, humanity, and dignity. “Balance is the key to living in a society that is both free and willing to protect itself. It is the reason the scales of justice are such a powerful symbol. To maintain their symmetry, our courts must be allowed to use all useful tools” (O’Neill, 2012, para. 13).

The report had thoroughly explained the issues pertaining to death penalty: its practice; its methods; its ineffectiveness as crime deterrence; its financial costs; and its errors and arbitrariness. The report also evaluated both sides of the arguments in the death penalty. Lastly, the report provided an ethical analysis of the relevant arguments and empirical data presented.

References

Amnesty International. (2016, January 26). Growing up on death row: The death penalty and juvenile offenders in Iran. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde13/3112/2016/en/

Bedau, H. A. (2002). The minimal invasion argument against the death penalty. Criminal Justice Ethics, 21(2), 3-8. Retrieved from http://libezproxy.nait.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=afh&AN=9156895&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Cooper, D., & Kamin, J. (n.d.). Deterrence: States without the death penalty have had consistently lower murder rates. Death Penalty Information Center. Retrieved from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

Costanzo, M., & White, L. T. (1994). An overview of the death penalty and capital trials: history, current status, legal procedures, and cost. Journal of Social Issues, 50(2), 1-18. Retrieved from http://libezproxy.nait.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=9501035817&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Death Penalty Cost. (n.d.). Amnesty International USA. Retrieved from http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost

Facts about the death penalty. (2016). Death Penalty Information Center. Retrieved from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf

Films On Demand. (Producer). (2000). Rethinking the death penalty [Video]. Retrieved from http://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?wID=102714&xtid=11258

McLachlan, J. A. (2009). The right choice making ethical decisions on the job. Toronto: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Nagin, D. S., Peppers, J. V. (2012). Deterrence and the death penalty. National Research Council. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

O’Neill, B. (2012, January 29). Balancing ethics and the death penalty. The News Tribute. Retrieved from http://thenewstribune.com/bluebyline/2012/01/29/balancing-ethics-and-the-death-penalty/

Pierce, G. L. & Radelet, M. L. (2005). The impact of legally inappropriate factors on death sentencing for California homicides, 1990-1999. Santa Clara Law Review, 46(1), 1-47. Retrieved from http://www.lexisnexis.com.libezproxy.nait.ca/lnacui2api/api/version1/getDocCui?oc=00240&hnsd=f&hgn=t&lni=521H-NPY0-00CV-1079&hns=t&perma=true&hv=t&hl=t&csi=144688&secondRedirectIndicator=true

Pierce, G. L., & Radelet, M. L. (2011). Death sentencing in East Baton Rouge Parish, 1990-2008. Louisiana Law Review, 71(2), 647-673. Retrieved from http://www.lexisnexis.com.libezproxy.nait.ca/lnacui2api/api/version1/getDocCui?lni=527W-VRW0-02C9-G0D5&csi=7365&hl=t&hv=t&hnsd=f&hns=t&hgn=t&oc=00240&perma=true

Pinto, S. (2015, October 19). Is the death penalty the answer to drug crime? Amnesty International. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2015/10/is-the-death-penalty-the-answer-to-drug-crime/

Radelet, M. L. & Lacock, T. L. (2009). Do executions lower homicide rates? The views of leading criminologists. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 99(2), 489-508. Retrieved from http://libezproxy.nait.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=afh&AN=42983768&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Reggio, M. (n.d.). History of the death penalty. PBS. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/execution/readings/history.html#fn3

Roman, J., Chalfin, A., Sundquist, A., Knight, C., & Darmenov, A. (2008). The cost of the death penalty in Maryland. Urban Institute. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/research/publication/cost-death-penalty-maryland/view/full_report

Rossel, S. (1992). The Holocaust: The world and the Jews, 1933-1945. Springfield, NJ: Behrman House.

Watson, P. J., Ross, D. F., & Morris, R. J. (2002). Borderline personality traits correlate with death penalty decisions. Personality and Individual Differences, 35(2), 421-429. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00204-0.

Welsh, J. (2003). The death penalty. The Lancet, 362(1), 24-25. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(03)15063-5.

White, P. J. (2001). Errors and ethics: Dilemmas in death. Hofstra Law Review, 29(4), 1265-99. Retrieved from http://libezproxy.nait.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ofs&AN=502387447&site=ehost-live&scope=site

#DeathPenalty #EthicsinDeathPenalty #TheCostofDeathPenalty #TheLawofTalon #TheArbitrarinessofDeathPenalty #SherryLynneComaniuk