Future of Death Sentencing

Access to justice creates equality and equity amongst individuals in all the spheres of
development irrespective of their gender, race, or sex. In other words, the judiciary is responsible
for dictating the kind of punishments that law offenders should be subjected to create safer
spaces in our communities. The US government has been divided based on individual
perspectives on matters of death penalty sentencing. The divisions have resulted in several states
in America banning the death penalty execution due to several controversies. The death penalty
is treated as one of the capital punishments that a law offender may be subjected to. In one way
or another, the capital penalty may result in the denial of human rights, which may not reflect
justice in society. Therefore, the government should lower the crime required to inquire the death
penalty because of the number of offenders released from prison that re-offend, the
overcrowding of most prisons, and the potential to lower the crime rate if threatened with death.

Andrea D. Lyon. (2014). The death penalty: What's keeping it alive. Rowman &
Littlefield. https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780810896024/The-Death-Penalty-Whats-Keeping-It-
Alive, enlightens the broader perspective about the initiation of death sentencing and why it
remains an active act within the judicial spaces. The author Andrea Lyons urges that the death
penalty as a corrective mechanism is a fixture within the judicial systems which seems to be
revoked by some states in America (Andrea 2014). The blame is put on the media as it covers the
issues surrounding the punishments that the accused individuals are subjected to. Some religious,
moral laws and values are active drives towards eliminating this kind of punishment on the
perceived lawbreakers. The state can only execute capital punishments, but when executed by
non-state, it now becomes murder. On the same note, the states' death penalty has been vividly
politicized due to non-state execution.

3
Banner, s., & Banner, S. (2002). The death penalty: An American history. Harvard
University Press. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674010833 raises
concerns over the individual’s perspectives on taking another person's life. On the same note,
perspectives differ from one individual to another with questions on whether it's an inhumane act
or it serves as a link to attaining justice. Banner explains the intergenerational changes that have
occurred in the initiation of the death penalty act within the States of America (Banner 2002). 
Over time, the penalty was based on the initiation of vices such as adultery, murder, or stealing
of horses. The hanging acted on ceremonial occasions where all the genders, sexes, or ages
would attend. Banner believes that the Death penalty can act as an invaluable measure of
understanding any punishment accrued to any lawbreaker. I agree with Stuart that debates on the
initiation of the death penalty across all states can be divisive.

Stephen G, & Breyer. (2016). Against the death penalty: International initiatives and
implications. Ashgate Publishing. https://www.brookings.edu/book/against-the-death-penalty/
creates a constitutional background on the initiation of the death penalty act in American society.
The book states the death penalty act violates the right to life of an individual as it is carried out
unfairly and inconsistently (Stephen et al. 2016).  In other words, the penalty entails severe
unreliability and delays in determining the death penalties on individuals. As time continues to
move, this act is slowly becoming a thing of the past that may not be adopted by many of the
states within America.

My perspective about the death penalty's future is that I agree with Stephen and Breyer
that this act can be ruthless based on an individual's life. Death sentencing, in my view, can be
very unconstitutional as it entails acts that limit every individual's right to living and attaining

4
their personal goals (Stephen et al., 2016). It is beyond doubt that the majority of the states and
countries worldwide will avoid the death sentence act as it may be a powerful act towards
destabilizing the societies. For instance, some individuals may be falsely accused and sentenced
to death imprisonment as a means of punishment. The time to revisit this penalty has come, and
the Supreme Court should involve all the stakeholders to eradicate this act within the spheres of
devel