The Death Penalty

Preceding initial research of the death penalty, the umbrella of crimes of which it covered seemed larger than it realistically was. Between murder, adult rape, and child rape, the death penalty could be widely applicable if deemed constitutional. Prior to any study, the death penalty surely seemed to be acceptable from a constitutional aspect, as such morally heinous crimes deserved to be severely punished accordingly. Upon subsequent research, many intricacies of the law were noticed or understood that were not previously. From an uneducated view, much of it seemed black and white. Dependent on the set of morals an individual holds, the death penalty was either acceptable and permissible, or it was cruel and unusual. The latter would therefore violate the Constitution and an individual’s rights. What a more sufficient analysis allowed was a broader look at the different situations and possibilities pertaining to crimes and capital punishment implementation.
Capital punishment arguably conflicts with two amendments of the United States’ Constitution. The Eighth Amendment states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The Fourteenth Amendment Section I states, “…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Referring to the Eighth Amendment, some perceive the death penalty to be classified as cruel and unusual. In reference to the Fourteenth Amendment, some believe there is a racial and/or financial bias accompanied with the death penalty, mistreating the non-wealthy and racial minorities.
Originally, the thesis of this paper strayed towards a more general interpretation of the death penalty, believing it was allowable for more crimes than just murder. In cases such as child and adult rape, the thesis blanketed all circumstances, meaning each crime would be