Introduction
The execution of a person who has been convicted of serious crimes, especially murder, is known as the death penalty or capital punishment. The proponents of the death penalty believe it provides justice, safety for the community and discourages criminals. Nonetheless, critics argue that it is a breach of human dignity and an unacceptable risk of irreversible injustice. Governments have a responsibility to hold criminals to account and to safeguard victims, but punishment has to be fair, effective and conform to human rights. Modern opponents of the death penalty in the United States point to racial discrimination and the exoneration of innocent prisoners (Jouet 46). Thus, the death penalty should be abolished because it can be applied unequally and unfairly, because there is no reliable evidence that it deters murder better than imprisonment, and because wrongful convictions can lead to the execution of innocent citizens.
Argument
Discrimination in sentencing is one reason why the death penalty should be abolished. Those who are charged with similar offenses should be treated equally, no matter their race or social class. Grosso et al. analyzed more than 27,000 murder and manslaughter convictions in California between 1978 and 2002 and determined that Black and Latinx defendants were more likely to receive death sentences than similarly situated defendants (482, 485). Additionally, their research revealed that, among cases with at least one White victim, Black and Latinx defendants were more likely to be sentenced to death than White defendants (Grosso et al. 485). With these findings, doubts have been cast on whether the death penalty can be fairly administered. A justice system is flawed if race influences who lives and who dies. While discrimination may happen in other aspects of the criminal justice system, execution has the most direct consequences, since the punishment may not be undone. The abolition of capital punishment would remove it from the law without taking away the ability of courts to send criminals to long terms of imprisonment for serious crimes.
- Cases in the group
- All other death-eligible cases
- Black defendantGap not statistically significant (p = 0.15)
- Latinx defendantGap not statistically significant
- At least one white victimGap marginally significant (p = 0.06)
- Black defendant, at least one white victimGap not statistically significant (p = 0.16)
- Latinx defendant, at least one white victimGap statistically significant (p < 0.01)
These are raw rates, before the study takes account of how serious each crime was. Once it controls for the circumstances that most often led to a death sentence, the odds of a death sentence were 8.7 times as high for Black defendants, 6.2 times as high for Latinx defendants and 8.8 times as high when at least one victim was white, each against all other cases; controlling instead for the study’s scale of the defendant’s culpability, they were 4.6, 3.2 and 2.8 times as high. All six results are statistically significant.
Chart by Writers Per Hour from Tables 4 to 7 of Grosso, Fagan and Laurence, “The Influence of the Race of Defendant and the Race of Victim on Capital Charging and Sentencing in California” (2024), pp. 502–504.
Show every figure
| Group | In the group | All other cases | The study’s test |
|---|---|---|---|
| Black defendant | 6% (357 of 6,037) | 3% (346 of 10,348) | Gap not statistically significant (p = 0.15) |
| Latinx defendant | 4% (200 of 5,328) | 5% (503 of 11,057) | Gap not statistically significant |
| At least one white victim | 7% (371 of 5,623) | 3% (332 of 10,762) | Gap marginally significant (p = 0.06) |
| Black defendant, at least one white victim | 8% (106 of 1,288) | 4% (596 of 15,096) | Gap not statistically significant (p = 0.16) |
| Latinx defendant, at least one white victim | 15% (133 of 906) | 4% (570 of 15,478) | Gap statistically significant (p < 0.01) |
The other argument for abolition is the absence of convincing evidence that the death penalty is more effective at stopping murder than other forms of punishment. Advocates believe that a potential criminal will not be tempted to commit a serious crime if they know they might be executed. However, this logic is predicated on the notion that criminals think through the legal ramifications before committing crimes. For instance, offenders who are under the influence of drugs or in emotional distress are unlikely to weigh the legal consequences before committing such crimes (Oliphant 917). Oliphant examined how death penalty moratoriums affected homicide rates in Illinois, New Jersey, Washington and Pennsylvania. Using the synthetic control method, which compares each state with a weighted combination of states that kept the death penalty (916), the study found no evidence that the moratoriums increased homicide rates: the rates fell in all four states, though not by a statistically significant amount. The result was inconsistent with the notion that the capital punishment system helps to deter murder (915). This does not mean that the death penalty is never a deterrent to an individual but rather its deterrent effect must be shown on a reliable basis. Instead, governments could improve police investigations and crime prevention measures and ensure that lawbreakers are captured and fairly prosecuted. These measures are for public safety, but they do not involve the execution of convicted persons by the state.
- Abolished (23 states and DC): 24
- In the law, executions on hold: 4
- In the law: 23
- Studied by Oliphant
- Illinois: moratorium on executions from January 2000; death penalty abolished in 2011.
- New Jersey: moratorium signed into law in January 2006; death penalty abolished in 2007.
- Washington: governor’s moratorium from February 2014; death penalty struck down by the state supreme court in 2018 and repealed in 2023.
- Pennsylvania: governor’s moratorium from February 2015, continued since 2023; the death penalty is still in the law.
Oliphant compared homicide rates in each of the four states from the year its moratorium began with a weighted combination of 24 states that kept the death penalty throughout, using data to 2018. In all four, homicide rates fell, but not by a statistically significant amount.
Map by Writers Per Hour from the Death Penalty Information Center’s State by State (checked October 26, 2026) and Oliphant, “Estimating the Effect of Death Penalty Moratoriums on Homicide Rates Using the Synthetic Control Method” (2022), pp. 915, 921–23.
Show every state
| State | Status | Since |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama | In the law | – |
| Alaska | Abolished (23 states and DC) | 1957 |
| Arizona | In the law | – |
| Arkansas | In the law | – |
| California | In the law, executions on hold | 2019 |
| Colorado | Abolished (23 states and DC) | 2020 |
| Connecticut | Abolished (23 states and DC) | 2012 |
| Delaware | Abolished (23 states and DC) | 2016 |
| District of Columbia | Abolished (23 states and DC) | 1981 |
| Florida | In the law | – |
| Georgia | In the law | – |
| Hawaii | Abolished (23 states and DC) | 1957 |
| Idaho | In the law | – |
| Illinois | Abolished (23 states and DC) | 2011 |
| Indiana | In the law | – |
| Iowa | Abolished (23 states and DC) | 1965 |
| Kansas | In the law | – |
| Kentucky | In the law | – |
| Louisiana | In the law | – |
| Maine | Abolished (23 states and DC) | 1887 |
| Maryland | Abolished (23 states and DC) | 2013 |
| Massachusetts | Abolished (23 states and DC) | 1984 |
| Michigan | Abolished (23 states and DC) | 1847 |
| Minnesota | Abolished (23 states and DC) | 1911 |
| Mississippi | In the law | – |
| Missouri | In the law | – |
| Montana | In the law | – |
| Nebraska | In the law | – |
| Nevada | In the law | – |
| New Hampshire | Abolished (23 states and DC) | 2019 |
| New Jersey | Abolished (23 states and DC) | 2007 |
| New Mexico | Abolished (23 states and DC) | 2009 |
| New York | Abolished (23 states and DC) | 2007 |
| North Carolina | In the law | – |
| North Dakota | Abolished (23 states and DC) | 1973 |
| Ohio | In the law, executions on hold | 2020 |
| Oklahoma | In the law | – |
| Oregon | In the law, executions on hold | 2011 |
| Pennsylvania | In the law, executions on hold | 2015 |
| Rhode Island | Abolished (23 states and DC) | 1984 |
| South Carolina | In the law | – |
| South Dakota | In the law | – |
| Tennessee | In the law | – |
| Texas | In the law | – |
| Utah | In the law | – |
| Vermont | Abolished (23 states and DC) | 1972 |
| Virginia | Abolished (23 states and DC) | 2021 |
| Washington | Abolished (23 states and DC) | 2023 |
| West Virginia | Abolished (23 states and DC) | 1965 |
| Wisconsin | Abolished (23 states and DC) | 1853 |
| Wyoming | In the law | – |
The death sentence should also be abolished as mistakes in criminal proceedings may result in irreparable injustice. When new evidence comes to light that confirms a prisoner's innocence, the conviction can be reconsidered and the prisoner released, which is impossible once an execution has been carried out. Modern American abolitionist arguments emphasize wrongful convictions, arbitrary sentencing, racism, and doubts over the effectiveness of capital punishment (Jouet 46). Such concerns highlight the need for governments to be mindful of the imposition of irreversible sentences. Life sentences, including life without parole where the law allows it, can protect society from dangerous offenders while still offering the opportunity to rectify errors in sentencing. Arguing against capital punishment is not about neglecting victims or justifying severe acts of violence but rather ensuring that fairness prevails in the corridors of justice regardless of defendants’ individual characteristics.
Counterargument
The proponents of capital punishment argue that it should be reserved for the most gruesome of crimes such as terrorism, multiple homicides and killing children. They state that those who deliberately take an innocent life should pay with their own. Others add that execution gives victims’ families closure, serves as a sign of societal condemnation of murder, and ensures that convicted murderers can never kill again. In this view, a prison sentence instead of death may seem too lenient and may not reflect the severity of the suffering endured by the victim. Advocates, then, believe that the death penalty serves justice and helps to keep society safe.
Rebuttal
Imprisonment is a powerful tool to keep potentially dangerous individuals off the streets and to harshly punish those who commit crime. However, the evidence of racial disparities casts doubt on the fairness of capital punishment (Grosso et al. 485), and moratoriums on executions have not been followed by higher homicide rates (Oliphant 915). The possibility of wrongful convictions means that there is the risk that the punishment cannot be undone. Governments can assist victims by providing counsel, financial aid, thorough investigations and just sentences. The abolition of the death penalty would, therefore, ensure accountability and minimize the risk of reaching an irreversible wrongful verdict through discrimination.
Conclusion
Capital punishment should be abolished because there is no strong evidence that it deters murder better than imprisonment and because it makes wrongful convictions irreversible. While the emphasis is laid on public safety and justice for victims, both goals can be achieved through secure prisons and crime prevention. The research by Grosso et al. raises questions regarding racial disparities, and the study by Oliphant calls into question the need for capital punishment to stop homicide. Jouet shows that these concerns about fairness and effectiveness are longstanding, since the death penalty has never been proven to deter and has always risked executing the innocent, and that earlier abolitionists also condemned executions as an affront to human dignity (94–95). A fair society must strike a balance between punishing serious crime and respecting human dignity, while recognizing that courts can make mistakes.
