The death penalty continues in the U.S., even over objections to how it isn’t a fair or foolproof form of punishment. The U.S. justice system is deeply flawed; it’s expected to defend the innocent victims and convict the guilty, but this century-old institution doesn’t promise either. With the risk of unjustified allegations, the consequences of the death penalty are not only dangerous but also irreversible. 

As generations evolve, so does our sense of fairness. It seems like our society as a whole is starting to question whether the government has the authority to take someone’s life as a punishment. 

People can argue that resistance to the death penalty is unjust and not a way to secure justice for those involved in cases. More often than not, according to Tilburg University, people who commit crimes that will most likely face the death penalty are in times of high emotion, and when individuals aren’t thinking of long-term consequences, they allow their emotions to override their actions.

Penalty supporters believe that it deters crimes and creates a sense of fear, but when people commit crimes like murder, they are usually filled with high, intense emotions during the crime, and do not contemplate consequences. So if people are not considering future consequences, when would the death penalty cause someone to stop their act of crime?

Some people see the death penalty as an “escape for criminals, however, this reasoning is flawed because it ignores the punishment itself. When the legal system sentences a criminal to death, the criminal does not choose this fate or punishment.  Life imprisonment is still severe, but it allows criminals to reflect on and consider their actions, instead of the death penalty, which forever ends someone’s life. It is hard to argue that the death penalty is  “easier” or less severe than life imprisonment itself. 

Along with this, there is consideration of situations like pleading guilty on account of mental illnesses, but it is rarely successful for cases facing the death penalty. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, “While a legal defense to the crime because of men­tal sta­tus at the time of tri­al is usu­al­ly avail­able, it is used in less than 1 percent of all felony cas­e and is suc­cess­ful in only a frac­tion.”  

These issues show that the death penalty is an unfair and flawed way to punish someone for crimes. This punishment doesn’t allow people to learn from their actions or face consequences for them, and it fails to prevent crime. Better alternatives exist, like teaching these individuals lessons about unforgivable actions. Instead of proving responsibility or protecting the public, it raises concerns about the value of human life and whether taking it away is punishment or simply inhumane.

 Not everyone deserves a second chance. Some crimes start from evil and are so life-altering to victims that second chances shouldn’t even enter the discussion. But everyone deserves an opportunity to prove that they’ve changed, that they can grow, and confront the past, especially in a place like prison or jail, where the main focus is for the detainees to reflect. 

When a criminal feels like they’ve reshaped themselves into a better person with a better perspective, that’s when second chances should become a part of the discussion. Not for parole, but personal forgiveness and belief that they are capable of change. But a second chance will never exist in a system that will always choose finality over the chance of accountability.

The whole idea of “a life for a life” is controversial. It’s undeniably gratifying to see someone pay for their crime; however, the death penalty is a form of revenge. Seeing someone have to live with immense guilt is more gratifying. No one deserves to have their life taken; not victims and not felons. But in the realistic fact that murder does happen, wouldn’t it be more just for someone to have to live with their guilt than be cleared of it altogether?