Death Penalty Discussion please see the attachment. it is my group responds please do not copy the answers just follow the format for how do they concluded

Death Penalty Discussion please see the attachment. it is my group responds please do not copy the answers just follow the format for how do they concluded their answers. and be the same side as they in this death penalty argument The man says he’s not guilt! Are you willing to put a man that may be innocent to death?
The death penalty puts innocent lives at risk. According to a study conducted by the
National Academy of Sciences, “4.1% of defendants sentenced to die are innocent.”
(Gross, O’Brien, & Kennedy, 2014, p. 1) To put this into perspective for you: There are
2,721 death row prisoners awaiting their execution as of today. Based on this study, this
means about 109 of those prisoners are innocent. We have no way of knowing how many
innocent people have been executed, but we can be certain that number is a disheartening
amount.
Although the defendant’s accused actions are deeply regrettable, especially considering
his crime committed against his own son, we can’t be 100% sure he committed all the
crimes he is being accused of. Clearly, our criminal justice system is subject to human
error. Defendants have crappy lawyers, the evidence is not always solid and doesn’t
always point to the right person. Furthermore, we must account for that and not be ready
to take an innocent man’s life in the process even if everything looks like it is pointing
towards him.
To execute an innocent person is morally reprehensible; this is a risk we cannot take.
 
Citation:
Gross,  S.  R.,  O’Brien,  B.,  Hu,  C.,  &  Kennedy,  E.  H.  (2014).  Rate  of  false  conviction  of  criminal  defendants  
who  are  sentenced  to  death.  Proceedings  of  the  National  Academy  of  Sciences,  111(20),  7230-­
7235.
Catherine:  
There  is  an  argument  in  favor  of  the  death  penalty  that  expresses  the  idea  that  since  this  form  of  
punishment  is  more  severe  in  comparison  to  others,  it  must  reduce  crime  rates.  However,  
according  to  Donohue,  a  professor  of  Stanford  Law  School,  there  is  “no  credible,  statistical  
evidence”  that  enforcing  the  death  penalty  reduces  homicide  rates.  There  have  been  
studies  that  have  found  a  correlation  between  the  death  penalty  and  reduced  homicide  rates.  
However,  in  2012,  the  National  Academy  of  Sciences  evaluated  these  studies  and  found  errors  
debunking  their  credibility  in  areas  such  as  causal  relationships,  coding  errors,  and  statistical  
significance.  
In  2014  in  the  United  States,  “14,000  murders  were  committed  but  only  35  executions  took  place.”  
California  spent  about  “$4  billion  to  execute  only  13  individuals”.  “The  $4  billion  would  
have  been  enough  to  hire  roughly  80,000  police  officers  who,  if  appropriately  assigned,  
would  be  expected  to  prevent  466  murders  (and  much  other  crime).”    
Citations:  
Donohue,  J.  (2009).  The  impact  of  the  death  penalty  on  murder.  Criminology  &  Public  Policy,  8(4).  
Donohue,  J.  (2015).  There’s  no  evidence  that  the  death  penalty  is  a  deterrence  against  crime.  Retrieved  
from  https://theconversation.com/theres-­no-­evidence-­that-­death-­penalty-­is-­a-­deterrent-­against-­crime-­43227
Tanesia:
The  death  penalty  cost  more  than  life  without  parole.
-­The  cost  of  sentencing  someone  to  death  is  costly  because  of  the  complex  and  long  
process  of  the  judicial  system  of  capital  cases.  The  mandatory  reviews  and  appeals  
process  can  take  decades.  A  death  sentence  can  cost  up  to  18  times  more  than  a  
sentence  of  life  without  parole.
The  cost  of  capital  cases  begin  before  the  sentence  is  carried  out.  
Cost:
-­prosecutors
-­defense  attorneys
-­pre-­trial  hearings
-­jury  selection
-­trial
-­appeals
-­continuous  motions
-­*time
“Although  it  may  cost  less  to  execute  a  particular  offender  than  to  maintain  the  offender  
in  prison  for  life,  it  cost  far  more  to  finance  a  system  in  which  the  decision  is  made  to  
execute  some  people,  all  of  whom  are  processed  through  the  entire  system.”
Nakell,  B.  (1978).  The  cost  of  the  death  penalty.  Crim.  L.  Bull.,  14,  69.
Luke:
The death penalty is arbitrarily applied, and therefore should not be used as punishment
for this crime. When the Supreme Court first placed a moratorium on capital punishment
in Furman v. Georgia 408 U.S. 238 (1972) the Justices argued that the Eighth
Amendment of the Constitution was designed to protect against “selective or irregular
application of harsh penalties, and that its aim was to forbid arbitrary and discriminatory
penalties of a severe nature” and that capital punishment, as it was carried out in 1972
was unconstitutional. However, since the court reversed its moratorium in 1976 the
penalty has been no less arbitrarily applied, and it is our contention that the manner of
this punishment constitutes an 8th amendment violation. There remains a clear lack of
uniformity in the American capital punishment system. While some of the most heinous
murders do not result in the death penalty, less heinous and even accidental murders are
punished by death. Additionally, it has been found that whether a person receives the
death penalty depends largely on where the crime was committed, further proving the
arbitrary nature in how the punishment is applied.
•  
An investigation by seven Indiana newspapers in 2001 found that the death
penalty depended on factors such as the views of individual prosecutors and the
financial resources of the county. Two Indiana counties have produced almost as
many death sentences as all of the other Indiana counties combined. (S. Bend
Trib., Oct. 21, 2001).
•  
In New York, which abolished the death penalty in 2007, upstate counties
experienced just 19% of the state’s homicides, but they nonetheless accounted for
61% of all capital prosecutions. Three counties (out of 62 in the state) accounted
for over one-third of all cases in which a death notice was filed.
Clearly, this capital punishment case is not altogether different from any other capital
punishment case in the country. Since no clear system for its application has been
formulated, regional variation in death sentences strongly suggests arbitrariness in
application. The punishment should not be pursued in this case.
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/arbitrariness#Evidence
Maryn – Discrimination
It is non-negotiable that prejudice exists in the application of the death penalty. As
reported by the American Civil Liberties Union, “People of color have accounted for a
disproportionate 43% of total executions since 1976, and 55% of those currently awaiting
execution.” This discrepancy is apparent in both defendant and victim analysis.
The U.S Department of Justice released survey results that proved the federal death
penalty is disproportionally used against victims of color. “From 1995-2000, 80% of all
federal capital cases seeking the death penalty involved people of color. Of the 18
prisoners currently on federal death row, 16 are either African-American, Hispanic or
Asian.”
Furthermore, while in America, “White victims account for approximately one-half of all
murder victims, 80% of all capital cases involve white victims.” The General Accounting
Office released
a report that found that, “For homicides committed under otherwise similar circumstances
where defendants had similar criminal histories, a defendant was several times more
likely to receive the death penalty if the victim was white than if the victim was African
American.”
We read about this exact scenario occurring in Just Mercy, but Walter’s experience is
neither isolated nor dated. The death penalty cannot be justly applied while racism plays
such a large role in the criminal justice system.
Jennifer-Discrimination/Legal Status/Political Views
American  death  sentences  have  both  declined  and  become  concentrated  in  a  small  group  of  
counties.  In  his  dissenting  opinion  in  Glossip  v.  Gross  in  2014,  Justice  Stephen  Breyer  highlighted  
how  from  2004  to  2006,  “just  29  counties  (fewer  than  1%  of  counties  in  the  country)  accounted  for  
approximately  half  of  all  death  sentences  imposed  nationwide.”  That  decline  has  become  more  
dramatic.  In  2015,  fifty-­one  defendants  were  sentenced  to  death  in  thirty-­eight  counties.  In  2016,  
thirty-­one  defendants  were  sentenced  to  death  in  twenty-­eight  counties.  In  the  mid-­1990s,  by  way  
of  contrast,  over  300  people  were  sentenced  to  death  in  as  many  as  two  hundred  counties  per  
year.  While  scholars  and  journalists  have  increasingly  commented  on  this  decline  and  speculated  
as  to  what  might  be  causing  it,  researchers  have  not  examined  it  empirically.  This  Article  reports  
the  results  of  statistical  analysis  of  data  hand-­collected  on  all  death  sentencing,  by  county,  for  the  
entire  modern  era  of  capital  punishment,  from  1990  to  2016.  This  analysis  of  death  sentencing  
data  seeks  to  answer  the  question  why  a  few  counties,  but  not  the  bulk  of  the  others,  still  impose  
death  sentences.  We  examine  state  and  countylevel  changes  in  murder  rates,  population,  victim  
race,  demography,  and  other  characteristics  that  might  explain  shifting  death  sentencing  
patterns.  We  find  that  death  sentences  are  strongly  associated  with  urban,  densely  populous  
counties.  Second,  we  find  that  death  sentences  are  strongly  associated  with  counties  that  have  
large  black  populations.  Third,  we  find  homicide  rates  are  related  to  death  sentencing  in  three  
ways:  within  and  between  death  sentencing  counties;;  within  and  between  death  sentencing  
counties  following  a  lag  to  account  for  the  time  it  can  take  for  a  case  to  proceed  to  a  sentencing;;  
and  that  counties  with  more  white  victims  of  homicide  have  more  deathsentencing.  Fourth,  we  
find  that  death  sentencing  is  associated  with  inertia  or  the  number  of  prior  death  sentences  
within  a  county.  These  results  suggest  what  remains  of  the  American  death  penalty  is  fragile  and  
reflects  a  legacy  of  racial  bias  and  idiosyncratic  local  preferences.  We  conclude  by  discussing  the  
practical  and  legal  implications  of  these  trends  for  the  much-­diminished  death  penalty  and  for  
criminal  justice  more  broadly.  [ABSTRACT  FROM  AUTHOR]
GARRETT,  B.  L.,  JAKUBOW,  A.,  &  DESAI,  A.  (2017).  The  American  Death  Penalty  Decline.  
Journal  of  Criminal  Law  &  Criminology,  107(4),  561.  Retrieved  from  
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=125935995&site=eds-­
live&scope=site
Increases  in  U.S.  immigration  and  the  growth  in  the  Latino  population  
highlight  the  importance  of  understanding  the  influence  of  ethnicity  and  
legal  status  on  participants’  decision-­making.  Furthermore,  immigration  is  a  
politically  charged  topic,  which  suggests  participants’  political  orientation  
might  relate  to  their  decisions  in  cases  involving  immigrant  defendants.  
Using  the  justification-­suppression  model  of  prejudice,  this  study  
investigated  the  influence  of  a  defendant’s  ethnicity  and  legal  status  in  the  
context  of  a  death  penalty  trial.  Results  demonstrate  that  the  defendant’s  
ethnicity  did  not  influence  participants’  punishment  decisions,  but  legal  
status  did.  Specifically,  participants  were  generally  more  punitive  toward  
both  undocumented  and  documented  immigrant  defendants,  compared  to  
U.S.-­born  defendants.  Punitiveness  toward  documented  immigrants  was  
qualified  by  an  interaction  with  participants’  political  orientation,  such  that  
middle-­of-­the-­road  and  more  liberal  participants  reported  greater  
punitiveness  toward  a  documented  immigrant  defendant,  compared  to  a  
U.S.-­born  defendant,  but  more  conservative  participants  reported  no  
differences  in  punitiveness  between  documented  immigrant  defendants  
and  U.S.-­born  defendants.  This  effect  was  mediated  by  participants’  
evaluation  of  mitigators  and  aggravators  but  only  among  more  liberal  and  
middle-­of-­the-­road  participants.  Implications  for  policy  and  future  directions  
are  discussed.  (PsycINFO  Database  Record  (c)  2017  APA,  all  rights  
reserved)
In  the  context  of  a  simulated  death  penalty  trial,  this  study  found  that  
liberal  and  moderate  mock  jurors  were  more  punitive  toward  documented  
immigrants  compared  to  American  citizens.  Conservative  mock  jurors  did  
not  demonstrate  this  bias.  This  finding  suggests  that  under  certain  
circumstances,  political  orientation  can  bias  jurors’  perceptions  of  
defendants  who  are  immigrants.  This  bias  would  unfairly  impact  the  right  to  
a  fair  trial  of  defendants  who  are  immigrants.  (PsycINFO  Database  Record  
(c)  2017  APA,  all  rights  reserved)
1.  

Purchase answer to see full
attachment