Working Thesis: the current increase in the number of cases of capital crimes such as mass murder, terrorism, piracy, and genocide is alarming. The United States is not an exemption to this, as the number of death penalties has been increasing for the last three years, from 20 to 23 to 25 in 2016, 2017 and 2018 respectively. Unless something is done to deter individuals from committing capital crimes, society will increase to free order, and people will continue to diminish the value of human life. Therefore it’s essential to increase death penalties by ensuring every offense that deserves the death penalty is accorded accordingly.

Paleo, David. “5 Reasons  why the World Needs the Death Penalty.” Amnesty International, 2016. 34-38

In his article ‘Reasons why the World needs Death Penalty’ Paleo, a writer, and human rights activist, indicates various reasons why the world should not only retain death penalty but act seriously towards capital crimes by increasing the incidences of the death penalty. Although the position that he maintains in the essay may seem to be a contradiction of his profession, being a defender of human rights, Paleo comes out loud to indicate that human rights are more violated than protected if murderers are left to continue killing innocent people in our society, without the word taking any stern action. One of the reasons which he states as to why the world needs the death penalty is that acts as a warning to other people who have the incentive to murder (Paleo, 32). Therefore instituting a death penalty serves to prevent more future deaths by warning murders who have not yet killed but have a plan to kill, or who have been killing but have not yet been caught. By warning them and presenting the cruelty of the penalty that awaits them, they can stop their criminal behavior saving lives. He also indicates that the death penalty helps to deter one from killing in the future. This is because once one has been killed through the death penalty, he or she can never kill again. Paleo looks death penalty critically from the side of benefit it brings to society. I believe this source will be a fundamental one to my paper and will provide a strong argument for the death penalty.

Melinda, Betty. “Why Support for the Death Penalty is Rising Again in America.” The Economist, 24 Aug. 2018.

In her study n ‘Why support for the Death Penalty is rising Again in America,’ Melisa found out that most of the reasons why the death penalty is increasing is due to society’s need to reduce the number of death in the society. According to the article, the death penalty was intense in the early and mid-1990s but declined toward the late 20^th century. Melissa found out that one of the reasons why death penalties in increasing in America is because it’s a means of instituting justice in the justice system. According to the study, the American court system views the death penalty as one of the means for ensuring that murderers do not commit heinous actions and escape with it. Although this seems to be an eye for an eye law, the diseased especially the innocent people who lose their lives in the hand of bloody murders deserve justice, and the best way to ensure this is maintained is to execute the murder. Also failing to execute the murder adds more burden to the quite unfair public. Melissa found out that the murderer already poses a burden to society by killing one of theirs. By letting the murder survive through a life sentence, it’s a way of burdening the public because they will have to pay for their food and healthcare while in prison.  The study also found out that the death penalty in America is increasing due to the need for deterrence. Death penalty saves lives. Its believed that one who once killed would continue to kill is left to live peacefully just like the other citizens. Also, by executing the murderer, the would-be murderers have a better reason to think twice as they realize that they are the next in the line. I think Melisa’s study provides some basic facts for understanding why the death penalty should be maintained and therefore will provide critical points for my paper.

Yale, Thomas. “Deterrence (In Support of the Death Penalty).” Death Penalty, 2013

According to Yale, the death penalty should not be illegalized but should be taken as any other means of correcting criminals. According to his essay, Yale argued that the death penalty is unconstitutional as it does not violate the provisions in the 8^th amendment. According to the constitution, the 8^th amendment stands to prohibit any imposition of excessive bails, fines and as well as cruel and unusual punishments, including torture. Yale states that the death penalty remains a fair option considering these provisions, as the amendment prohibits an institution of excessive bails and fines. Also, the constitution considered the death penalty a better option compared to torture. According to the essay Yale states that by murderers having first committed the killing, it’s a show of disrespect to humanity and therefore they should also be killed. He argues that its an indication that they do not respect the dignity I of human beings and therefore act as in humans. Since there is no human being who has the right to kill another human being, their first commitment to crime is like an indication that they are not humans and therefore should not be respected either. I consider this article important for my thesis as it backs up my study problem with facts

David, Mike. “Death penalty should not be allowed.” Death Penalty ProCon.org, 2011, deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001324.

According to this study, David indicates that the death penalty is an act against human right and should, therefore, be prohibited at all cost. According to David, no evidence shows that the death penalty is a deterrent to future murderers. In his investigation, David found out that most murderers after their first killing and trial (Those not executed)  often changed their behavior and even joined volunteer groups and other social groups to condemn criminal activities in the society. David also stated that execution has never been a means of deterring future murdered as capital crimes continue to increase despite the increase in the cases of death penalties in the country. This shows that murderers continue to carry out their evil acts without being moved by the execution of any criminal. The article also indicates that killing is against human rights and no one should have the right to take the life of anyone. Alternative measures including torture or life imprisonment can opt. I think Davids’s article is essential for building my thesis is it provides facts about counter-arguments.

Mary, Leah. “Reasons to Abolish the Death Penalty? Amnesty International Australia.” Amnesty International Australia, 2018,23-27

In her study on “Reasons to Abolish the Death Penalty,” Mary found out death penalty does no good to any society and should, therefore, be done away with. According to the article, there is no humane way to kill. This is in response to assumptions that the means that are used to execute the murderers are usually painless deaths. Mary indicates that even the use of a lethal weapon or even being electrocuted is never a smooth and painless death. Also, Mary indicates the death penalty is unjust in itself as in most cases innocent people are usually executed(Mary, 25). There are many materials where one is executed, and it is later discovered that the person executed was innocent. This makes the public to lose confidence with the judicial system of our country. It is also unfair to the executed and his or her family. According to the article, the death penalty is also not a means of deterring criminals and murderers. Mary states that this is just a mere assumption that cannot be proven and has not any basis. She emphasizes that if the death penalty was a means deterring future criminals there so far, there would be no murderers in our society as thousands of people all have already been executed. I think this article is important in providing counter arguments on why the death penalty should not be increased but should instead be abolished.