Having a death penalty in the United States doesn't make sense. We are the only civilized Western nation that still has it (Clark et al, 2004). Other nations consider the death penalty immoral and opposed to democratic principles because it allows the government to kill citizens, which violates fundamental human rights and increases the likelihood of tyranny. As a punishment for crime, the death penalty cannot be administered fairly or impartially in our criminal justice system ("Innocence and the Death Penalty," 2005). Some of the people who get executed are innocent (Hall, 2003). From a practical standpoint, the death penalty is an expensive and ineffective way to control crime (Sherrill, 2001). The death penalty should be abolished in the United States.

             We did not always have the death penalty. During the 1950s and early 1960s most Americans were against capital punishment and those in favor of it were a "distinct and dwindling minority," according to the Supreme Court. But Richard Nixon revived the idea as a national campaign issue for his presidential election in 1968, and Ronald Reagan the same for his California gubernatorial campaign in 1972 (Sherrill, 2001). The result was that executions were re-instituted. Who gets the death penalty is problematic.

             Only one in a hundred convicted murderers get a death sentence. The question is, how do we decide who that one person should be? It is not the person who has committed the most heinous crime. We are all familiar with cases where abhorrent and malicious crimes were committed and the perpetrator-Charles Manson, for example--got a sentence of life in prison. On the other hand, a person who was part of a liquor store robbery and didn't actually pull the trigger is sentenced to death or a high profile case like Scott Peterson with lots of onlookers. How does a prosecuting attorney decide whether or not to seek a death penalty? In most cases, politics plays a big role.