Case Against Capital Punishment

Clarence Darrow, one of the best and well-known lawyers of the twentieth century, was openly disgusted by the concept of capital punishment. In his most famous case, defending two rich teenage boys in a murder trial, he stated why. He begged for the life of the boys, claiming that their execution would mark a return to barbarity, while doing nothing to prevent anyone else from killing in the future, because they were created this way. He says, “Nature made them do it, evolution made them do it, [Friedrich] Nietzsche made them do it. So they should not be sentenced to death for it," and he believed that cruelty could not be overcome with cruelty, but with “understanding, charity, kindness, and the infinite mercy that considers all” (Illinois v. Leopold and Loeb). Although his statements about the usefulness of the death penalty in the closing argument of the case were not backed by specific scientific evidence, studies did indeed follow. Over the past half-century, studies have been conducted using diverse methodology on the parts of many different people who favored either side of the argument. Whether the study was conducted comparing a state with capital punishment to one without it (Sellin), or comparing the homicide rate in a state where capital punishment was adopted to the time prior to it (Zeisel), the research continually proved that there was no deterrent value to the death penalty. Some research even pointed to the contrary, determining that the example of violence and the rising passions lead to increases in the homicide rate in the state surrounding the date of execution (Forst). Thus, nothing indicates that capital punishment has any deterrent effect whatsoever, thereby violating the right to human life for the vulnerable, all for selfish desires of vengeance without the justifying claim of preserving human life.
As in any case, there are two sides to this argument. Those who consider an execution appropriate punishment for murder cases believe that...