the death penalty

The cornerstone of our nation was founded upon freedom and rights to all its’ people. Generations that have come and gone attempted to base these concepts on typical moral codes, however that have been known to conflict. One of the most heated debates we still pursue is the elusive answer to whether or not the death penalty is an acceptable punishment.
Since the States first began keeping records, more than 18,800 people have been executed within the 38 of the 50 states that still use the death penalty as of 1608. The state is typically in charge of deciding which methods to put to use consisting of lethal injection as the most popular followed by electrocution and there is also hanging, the gas chamber, along with a firing squad. The question though is whether or not they are cruel or unusual types of punishment which would conflict with the prisoner’s rights and amendments. Many arguments have been raised attempting to abolish the death penalty with the first recorded effort in the home of former president Benjamin Franklin during a meeting in 1787.
The six main arguments that counter the death penalty include: people on death row have been proven innocent later on, death is not an effective deterrent seeing how people still commit the crimes, by nature our legal system is arbitrary, it is discriminatory against minorities where they well outnumber whites, and the main point is that life is sacred and killing criminals makes you no better than the condemned.
The average time to sit on death row is approximately 10 years and 8 months which is a considerable amount of time to stew it over. A case between Elledge and Florida in 1998 was questionable whether a man awaiting the death penalty was being deprived the right of a speedy trial and so forth after being denied an appeal after the 23rd year when they filed it (now it has been even longer, 33 years!) In order to help reduce the time and other delays, during the case of McClesky vs. Zant in 1991 the number of appeals was limited and 2 months later during Coleman vs. Thompson, procedural default was eliminated which covers missing filing deadline appeals on time-solidifying a more certain ruling more so.
To contribute to the fight against the death penalty, the discovery of 124 innocent people within 25 different states have been freed from 1973-2007 especially with the new method of DNA testing paving the way to scientific truth. Eye witnesses have always been around, but there is no hiding from definite scientific reason. The jury is also there to make the decision and when the judge during the case of Ring vs. Arizona dismissed them, Ring found a loop hole to buy himself more time and open hundreds of over cases in which the judge made a sole decision also. What one man is worthy to decide another’s life is for the taking?
The death penalty has its pros and cons and I agree there are many men and women you just cannot seem to solve what to do with them, but at times death is just not morally the right thing to do. Vengeance for closure, the fact that some people just deserve it, and to protect others from the criminal to commit any more violent acts are reasons to rid ourselves of criminals if needed. The costs to use execution or to even have the possibility of its use runs extremely high along with the fact that obviously people still commit the crimes despite being aware of the outcome it presents. I for one argue the moral stance we take when allowing it and like to point out the dent it puts in a taxpayers wallet when it doesn’t scare these criminals. I feel punishment should take a different route because our jails are packed and those who do come out rarely are successfully rehabilitated.