User:Marionez/sandbox

The execution of the death penalty to victims facing death row charges deduces empathy in public emotions, demonstrating the public attitude towards the punitive measure for capital offenses (Gross, 2007). The public empathy for the victims facing death row charges has consistently ignited the rational public debate as to whether Death Sentence is ethical, just, and among other things influences the society in positive dimensions such as limiting or contributing towards the fight against crime. Arguments in the public domain, exudes mixed reactions from the several citizens, whose social set up, education level, economic ability and religious orientation among other things differ from one person to another (Gross, 2007). With respect to every individual’s opinion, the embracing of constitutionalism by the United States of America’s citizens has continuously remained the framework within which divergent opinions, social and economic transactions, political inclination or even the fundamental rights and freedoms violation, are reviewed for judicial execution following right to equity and other essential fundamental human rights. Every citizen is protected by the constitution. Constitution in this regard is defined as the established precedents or body of basic principles that a state or an institution acknowledges as guidelines for execution or governance. The aspects of execution and governance in the definition of constitution connote the aspect of bestowing of obligations or responsibilities by a group. The parties or individuals are to be in charge or the sole decision makers regarding matters affecting the public or the governed. The individuals or groups society as a whole of executing established precedents of the rule of the people, in turn, are described as the center of authority, acting by the established fundamental policies.

To that effect, the public remains with the sole power to comply with the verdicts of the centers of authority if only such judgments are approved or spelled by the established precedents about the public welfare. The public may exude tendency of approval of an established precedent if only the precedents aim at safeguarding the human interests and promote peaceful and rightful living or coexistence between different individuals or parties. Thus, the Americans reserve the sole right to amend the constitutions to take dimensions that are approved or agreed upon by the majority, which forms the government. The implementation of the death penalty as a stipulation for repercussions to be faced by public offenders who commit crimes against the state as earlier mentioned has always evoked mixed or varied reactions, not only within the United States of American spheres but also in the global sphere. Several arguments have been laid forth to point out the advantages and disadvantages of the constitutional stipulation of death penalty by various scholars, that turns out to be shunning the practice than approve. Biases in the judicial prosecutions, for instance, has been pointed out by scholars such as Donohue III and Wolfers, (2006), purporting with evidence the possibility of manipulation of the judicial processes that sees wrongful conviction or prosecution of individuals accused of committing crime against the state. International watchdog bodies or agencies such as the Amnesty International has continually been recognized in the global media for championing the protection against violation of the fundamental human rights. The Non-governmental organizations further their discourse of advocacy against violation of fundamental human rights and dignity to have nations across the globe amend their constitutions to do away with the Death Penalty execution for capital offenders suggesting some alternatives as discussed in the subsequent sections (Amnesty International, 2003). The suggestion of existing better alternatives commensurate to capital offenses has been perpetrated by (Bright, 2000). Bright (2000) advocate alternative measures so as to provide the legislators with mechanisms to facilitate the alteration of the constitutional provision that is not welcomed by the majority of the US citizens. As indicated by polls carried out by Erskine’s (2010) study on the “The Polls: Capital Punishment” demonstrating the will the global public, USA included to have death penalty removed from the Constitution, many Americans anticipate the adoption of a moratorium on the capital punishment. The possibilities of crime reduction, wrongful prosecution of the mentally ill, other than prosecutorial biases are as well some of the fundamental explanations that have been established by distinguished studies for the abolition of death penalty in the American Constitution. The death penalty has negative influences on human behavior, expression, and ethics and these indicate that the U.S. should adopt a moratorium on the death penalty.

Body This study has reviewed the literature to ascertain background as well as the justification of the argument for appropriate discussion leading to rational deduction as outlined in the succeeding subsections. There Is A High Risk Of Executing Innocent People In The Justice System. The police force, the judicial arm of the government with the aid of organs such as courts and the prisons together with the oversight agencies are primarily viewed as the implementers of punitive and rehabilitation measures to constitutional offenders (Garrett, 2014). However, it's worth noting that the police, the court, the prison and oversight agencies work in coordination to ascertain the effectiveness and efficiency of the legal institutions. The effectiveness and the efficiency of such agencies are demonstrated by the transparent and accountable exercising or execution of authority and duties that honor the Constitution, which is the guardian of the people. Lack of transparency and accountability in the public entities and their proceedings may call for the federal initiative to ascertain justice and impartiality, in the administration of public service by the entrusted state officers, especially in the legal entities such as the judicial system. The study by Petersen and Lynch, (2012) asserts the possibility or the need by the public to address the dysfunctionality of the death penalty system within the United States of America. In their research, Petersen and Lynch (2012) reviewed the manner in which homicide cases as an illustration of the dysfunctionality of the death penalty system are executed. Taking a look at homicide cases in the county of Los Angeles dating back from 1996-2008, Petersen and Lynch (2012) examined the timeframe within which capital offenses such as homicide are prosecuted as well as the independence of the judicial process, that is, free from manipulation. To establish actual outcomes, the researchers explored two interlinked possibilities that comprised of the odds of filling for death-notice and the time taken to finalize the prosecutorial process. The approach ascertained that cases that are death eligible and encompassed exceptional circumstances were prosecuted “capitally” as opposed to ordinary circumstances/cases. With the aid of Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model, Petersen and Lynch (2012) discovered that the prosecution of death-eligible or capital cases took longer to prosecute than noncapital cases. Additionally, the time required to fill for particular circumstance to harmonize the prosecution of capital cases was subjected to reversing the possibility of facing death penalties. The above findings by Petersen and Lynch (2012) demonstrated the possibility of interference with the judicial process limiting objectivity and transparency of the judicial process by the requirement of the constitution. Incompatibility Of The Death Penalty With Human Rights And Dignity. Death Penalty is a violation of human rights. The right to life as defined by Human Rights Activists encompasses the power to give and to take away life, which is as well biblically/religiously asserted to be unjust. The efforts and Initiatives by the world renowned International Governmental Organizations, Non-governmental bodies and Human rights institutions to advocate for the abolition of Death Penalty marks the desire by the world to do away with provision for the death penalty as a punitive remedy for the capital offenses (Kim, 2016). Amnesty International, for instance, has successfully campaigned in more than 168 nations globally has the constitution amended to safeguard human rights violation through the penalty of death. The human rights activist organizations managed to influence the political systems/policies, networking with local politicians among other preliminary engagements essential towards the attainment of the removal of death penalty motion (Kim, 2016). The believability level of the activism organizations demonstrates the public trust globally in the international representation for the campaign and protection of fundamental human right globally against violation by any regime or power authority like the US (Kim, 2016). The delay by the section of the US to withdraw the death penalty provision calls for the international apology for the betrayal of protection of fundamental human rights, being a member of international organizations that works to safeguard human safety such United Nations Human Rights Commission(UNHCR), an affiliate to United Nations General Assembly. The remarkable efforts by Amnesty International in the 1970s and 1989 to influence the European States from subjecting citizens to the death penalty should be extended to the United States that is reluctant to adopt a moratorium or do away with the death penalty in the American Constitution (Kim, 2016). The US is blamed for failing to lead by an example like most Western countries have. The United Nations points out the delay by most counties in the US to abolish the death penalty as a retrogressive encounter, citing supremacy and abuse of power. The US regrettably citing criminal and legal variations from country to country requested to be conservative in the manner of responding to or managing criminal obligations. Every nation according to the US representative at the UNHCR Council (Cătălina, 2013) has their techniques of fighting crime. Therefore the US should be privileged to prosecute or undertake its criminal obligations in manners deemed relevant to the US. According to Zivot (2012), the execution of death penalty is a violation of human rights. The method such as lethal injection, electrocution, hanging, shooting, gassing among other processes enacted by countries exercising death penalty is a violation of the human right, which is right to life, which requires being protected at all costs and not be induced to suffering or endangered. Death penalty opponents like European countries have since stopped the supply of chemicals used in the prosecution of death row cases citing that such drugs or chemicals like the Sodium thiopental are made to safeguard life and not taking it away. The United States cannot stand up to the death penalty charges as ways of exercising justice while also working to protect or safeguard the lives it also takes away. People are charged in prison for murder. Therefore it is illogical to solve a case of murder with murder (Kim, 2016).

The Existence Of Discrimination/Arbitrariness In Cases Leading To The Death Penalty. The study by Bratina, Cox, and Fetzer (2016), recognizes the possibility of racial bias in the judicial system that may end up in wrongful prosecution of capital offenses accused persons. The study entitled “Racism and White death penalty support: A test of the racist punitive bias hypothesis,” through the use of a convenient sample of the US citizens, attempted to validate the racist punitive bias in the judicial system and processes. The study proposed an explanation that the racially prejudiced people, leads to the subjective prosecution of such vulnerable individuals, might see or naturally categorize minority individuals as more criminal. Policy implications of Britana et al.,’s study affirmed that state officers entrusted with the judicial obligations accomplished their duties following their competence and personality disposition. Therefore, the justification of possible bias in the court proceedings is a satisfactory reason for the abolition of Death Penalty in the American Constitution. The capital jurists who might be racially discriminative may demonstrate prejudice or bias that mitigates the objectivity and fairness in death sentences. Though there exist no explanations to account for the relationship between racial prejudice and death sentence, the extent of support for the death sentence remains the crucial link ascertaining the value of death penalty in any judicial system (Garrett, 2014). The Existence Of Better Alternatives Such As Life Imprisonment Without Parole. Cases have been witnessed in the history of capital cases prosecutions whereby individuals seek or plead to be accorded different method of the end of life prosecutorial choices. Some people may prefer lethal injection as a method of executing death penalty whereas others may prefer instant shooting to avoid undergoing pain and suffering and face death at once. The availability of the various alternatives for the implementation of the death penalty, as a matter of fact, recognizes the extent of the cruelty of the death penalty as a prosecutorial remedy. Life imprisonment without release or bail is a better alternative as suggested by scholars such as (Kim, 2016) as opposed to taking away life. The States in which the death penalty is abolished has resorted to harsher terms of sentencing that meets the costs of offenses committed in place of the death sentence. The availability of better alternative should be an alternative the US government should be planning to adopt so as to halt death penalty. Charging individuals with compensation policies to make up for the damages caused by the capital offenses should be a remedy or a way of according justice to the affected victims of capital crimes or the defendants. People should be allowed to makeup, or plea bargains for the damages cost so as to accord satisfactory justice to the complainants. Individuals can as well be imprisoned for life with additional duties such as community service for several years so as to achieve judicial effects of mitigating crime and ascertaining justice to complainants. Doing or facing lifetime charges is more humane as opposed to taking away life. People should always get the chance or at least be accorded the opportunities to regret their actions if they indeed are guilty as charged. The option of death sentencing may also subject innocent persons to the malice of enemies that may see the innocent lose lives over nonfactual claims leading to imprisonment, upon failure to stage competent and witty defense. The arbitrariness in the law and the legal systems establishes gap for prosecutorial manipulation that may result in harsh prosecution of vulnerable persons to the death penalty. Alternative Means Of Punishment Are Cost-Effective The execution of death penalty is a process that leads to maximum utilization of or strain on required government resources to accomplish the legal obligations of the judicial process. The available alternatives for the execution of death penalty as a remedy to punishing capital offenders require the setup of an additional facility with resources such as human capital and materials or other resources that need to be utilized to ascertain prosecution of the individuals facing death row charges. Unlike the ordinary prisons that house criminals facing lifetime sentences, the death penalty charges require additional resources such as chemicals and the personnel to carry out the end of life criminal charges duties. Zivot (2012), reports a scenario of prison units/department lacking the essential materials required by the personnel to accomplish or perform their functions. The drugs used in standard anesthesiology, by the name Sodium thiopental is reported to be no longer available in the United States for instance. The drug that is mostly manufactured in the European countries costs the government and the tax payer’s money extra costs to punish a person who is already charged as guilty by the court system. The lethal injections that use drugs such as Sodium thiopental to terminate the life of dangerous criminals are the most preferred mechanisms many victims opt for as opposed to other strategies such as shooting, gassing, or even hanging. Moreover, one would be justified to argue that the presence of choices for end of life prosecution concretely determines the government and judicial system inability or lack of authority to take away individuals lives. Essentially, individuals’ are still entitled to their life choices even when it comes to facing death penalty charges, whereby people are entitled to choosing methods of prosecution that they are comfortable with, a fact that justifies the US government should adopt a moratorium on death penalty. Further, the process by which the body of the remains of the individuals who faced death charges is discarded as well requires additional chemical or biological processes that enhance environmental safety. People who execute criminals facing death charges as well risk their lives facing vengeance from the families of the individuals they prosecute. Initiation of the need to safeguard the lives of such prison workers, which is an additional expense in the budget of the government funded by the taxpayers, who exude mixed reactions regarding the implementation of death sentencing follows. Government soliciting for resources externally to manufacture drugs used in life sentencing is as well an unnecessary expenditure that does not impact national growth or development, asserting a fact that death sentencing does not mitigate crime or impact crime mitigation. Life sentencing, for instance, does not require the government to incur extra expenses on the national budget, as capital offenders facing lifetime charges becomes assets of the State that can be employed in various sectors to impact overall growth, such as community services programs that other than focusing on change or rehabilitative measures, leads to the acquisition of free labor. Life term programs such as rehabilitation are not fully funded by the government as support is continually administered or subsidized by the various organization that works to ensure social and economic change in the society as a whole. The provision of clothing and donations from public entities subsidizes government spending that in turn leaves the government with extra funds that can be channeled to other arms of the government or sectors to facilitate overall development. The alternative measures for punishing criminals such as fine/penalty fee also serve as government source of revenue, as opposed to the death penalty. Therefore government should embrace the substantial cash penalties for capital offenses instead of the death sentence as a way of mitigating crime (Kim, 2016).

There Exists A Risk Of Executing The Mentally Ill. The judicial process is sometimes rushed depending on the prosecutorial discretion of the judicial officers like the police, magistrates, attorneys and the accused persons. Individuals who are mentally ill cannot understand the purpose of their punishment or reality within which crime was perpetrated, therefore are excluded from execution. The law protects individuals who are not sane adding that they are not capable of defending themselves and may not be criminally liable at the time of committing the offense. The American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities specifies that individuals whose intelligent quotient is 70 and above are limited intellectually. Many defense attorneys as pointed by Johnson and Kelly, (2016) have argued cases around to protect accused persons from facing charges such as death penalty. The trick is to claim or plead mental inability, as means of arguing for protection against the laid charges. However, the case scenario turns out unpleasant when individuals who commit the crime under the influence or unstable mental state face death row charges. Committing crime is never an option to many law abiding citizens. Victims of crime are either intentional or life mistakes/accidents. Therefore, for one to commit a serious crime, it takes planning and proof of motive backed up by evidence for the judicial process to be substantiated as objective and factual, void of bias of expert faults that may lead to judicial miscarriage (Donohue III, & Wolfers, 2006). The inclusion of mental tests for the accused persons should be made as a recommendation so as to enhance the objectivity and fairness of the judicial processes. The possibility of judicial miscarriages such as interference with the independence of the prosecutorial proceedings may implicate mentally unsound and at times innocent victims (Johnson, & Kelly, 2016). People whose brains do not function normally should not be prosecuted as such persons cease to ascertain logical reasoning. Further, the struggle by the complainants to ascertain justice may as well make the judicial process overlook or under look details of the process of trial leading to imprisonment or prosecution of the mentally ill (Johnson, & Kelly, 2016). A person without sound reasoning lacks the mental capacity to choose between wrong and right. Therefore asking them to bear consequences of their actions is equivalent of the human negligence of the mental capacity of such persons that would, in turn, implicate innocent victims such as relatives, friends or guardians who may in turn face or be subjected to collateral damage (Johnson, & Kelly, 2016). Mentally ill persons deserve to be under extreme care or supervision. The drive to accord justice by awarding death penalty to the innocent that are mentally unsound requires proof so as to protect vulnerable victims from wrongful prosecution through a twist of prosecutorial proceedings and judicial deliberations (Johnson, & Kelly, 2016). Capital Punishment Does Not Prevent Crime. The main reason as to why punitive measures are exercised in the legal system is to encourage individuals to refrain from committing crimes in general that may result in serious prosecutorial consequences like the Death Penalty. The abolition of Death Penalty is quite unpopular in sections of the US, though its impact is not quantitative as no social progress can be ascertained (Nikolaichev, 2014). The penalty of death does not influence people committing a crime. Because of the above reason, its implementation should be effected if it helps impact the life of the victim imprisoned or prosecuted, to become a productive member of the society (Nikolaichev, 2014). Programs such as community service and rehabilitation by the judicial service contribute towards change and behavior reformation by the convicts, which is not the case in death row charges. There are no lessons learned from life about to be lost, with the motive of inflicting fear on the public to refrain from committing capital offenses (Nikolaichev, 2014). The opposite of the expected may turn out to be true if individuals become fearful and aggrieved upon placement on death row. The fear of death may turn out to be disastrous instead of being corrective and beneficial to the parties involved (Nikolaichev, 2014). The philosophical and ethical arguments question the morality of the death penalty practice which is subjectable to public debate. Irrespective of any expediency, death penalty contributes to the retribution of grave crimes as perpetrated by the Kantian school of thinking (Nikolaichev, 2014). The death penalty being conditioned by the nature of crime recognizes absolute imperative. The question, therefore, is the inevitability of the measure? It is also not possible to way the weight of the crime versus the weight of penalty per se. The process in itself is a crime; the only difference is that it is committed by the government (Nikolaichev, 2014). Capital offences such as Murder for instance, events such as food poisoning or chemicals that affects the normal functioning of the human body causing death, robbery, burglary, rape among others that make innocent lives vulnerable other than physical assault leading to loss of life or the event of loss of life itself, cannot quantitatively be pointed out to be commensurable with death penalty. Determination of the human disposition to exude bias in or while presiding over crimes, therefore, is likely (Nikolaichev, 2014). The primary objective of judicial systems that implement death penalty is to induce fear in public to engage in or refrain from committing serious crimes by awarding death penalty as a remedy. The intent alone, does not ring the mind of criminals, say when accused persons are faced with options regarding crimes perpetrated, with the knowledge of possible prosecutorial repercussions, it is undeterminable whether the criminals would carry on their illegal acts or not (Sarver, 2014). Therefore death penalty is only a sharp blade meant to correct unprecedented or precedent mistakes/crimes. People may still choose to perpetrate a crime or refrain with or without the death penalty, thereby limiting the social and economic implications associated with punitive remedies exercised by the court and prison systems (Nikolaichev, 2014). Many Religions Oppose The Death Penalty Religion can be defined as the faith to which one subscribes such as Muslim, Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism if not Paganism. The religion to which individuals ascribe greatly has an effect on the social composition of persons and the society at large (Gudorf, 2013). The constitution as a document that spells out the frameworks of behavior or transactions in different aspects respects the religious inclinations stipulated by various religions that are ascribed to the creators of the constitution (Gudorf, 2013). So in effect, the religion shapes the human thinking and behaviors as the primary purpose for which individuals ascribe to religions is to follow the teachings and practice of particular religion, that spells and defines codes of conduct and behavior, essentially impacting morality and correctness of behavior for the general correlations within a social setting. Christianity for example, shares a belief in a supernatural being, by the name God, according to whom followers of Christian religion demonstrate behaviors regarding his teachings (Gudorf, 2013). The cornerstone of Christianity is the belief in Christian teachings such as the commandments that spell Christian lifestyle and beliefs (Gudorf, 2013). One of the commandments bars Christians from taking away their own life or the life of other, which is against the death penalty. According to Christianity, life is special and only given by God. Therefore no human has authority over life. The same sentiment is echoed by Christian citizens who face the death penalty as charges against crimes capital offenses. The act of pardoning is motivated by Christians believing Christ died for their sins. Christianity spells out that the administration of capital punishment is capricious therefore it is not just. Pacifist Christians as well argue that the use of violence only perpetuates more violence (Gudorf, 2013). Buddhists, on the other hand, believe in teachings of Buddha, which regards life as sacred and should not be taken for any reason. Buddhism spells the Caste system that sees the orientation or classification of society into social strata following level of purity, that is, devoid of blemish or sins. Killing is an illegal practice in Buddhism and has or shares the equivalence to the death penalty (Bright, 2000). Muslims too believes in the sanctity of life, and continuously advocate against the death penalty as a charge for the criminal offenses. The religious moral status of the executioners of the death penalty is complicated. The criminal offenders as per the religious stipulations of the main three denominations understudied revealed in social mechanisms of ascertaining justice as opposed to killing or taking away of life. The historical assassination of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein has since resulted into radicalism between the Islamic states and the Christianity states, seeing an increase in criminal activities such as terrorism as opposed to reduction as anticipated. The Muslims shares the belief in the sanctity of life like any other religion and embraces alternative punitive measures to the death penalty. The Christian pacifists, for instance, preferred banishing of capital offenders, isolation or deprivation from basic facilities as means of ascertaining social justice to the complainants (Gudorf, 2013). The remedies remain plausible to date. Thus the US judicial system should figure to adopt such mechanisms so as to enhance the ethicality and justice administration of the judicial systems and processes (Gudorf, 2013). Discussion Death Penalty has no face in the 21st century, and following this reason, the US should adopt a moratorium (Sarver, 2014). The above-discussed subtopics assert the insignificance of the death penalty as well as evaluating the possible multi-loopholes that arise from its execution. The arbitrariness in the legal frameworks is a logical explanation to warrant the public to vote against the constitutional provision for the death penalty. The religious inclination that advocates for the sanctity of life substitute death penalty with social remedies that remains plausible to the contemporary global jurisdiction systems (Sarver, 2014). The polls that were determined by United Nations General Assembly exuded the global desire to do away with death sentencing except for the USA and China. 106 nations voted for the removal of the death penalty while 46against with 26 abstentions confirmed that the world does not admit death penalty as a judicial punitive measure (Kim, 2016). The vote represented the world trend to do away with the capital punishment, which was a positive step towards honoring and dignifying the life. China is on the record for having amended the constitution to remove death penalty years ago, marking high time for the US to pay decent honor to the call by the world to abolish capital punishment other than the scientific and non-scientific discourse to invalidate the death penalty in the legal systems. The political structure of the US that is classified as homogeneous doesn’t reflect the nation’s political structure, that is comprised of different ethnic races with a varied social setup, lifestyle, religion, education level and political awareness and representation that counts. The US has over 50 states, and nineteen of these states have abolished the death penalty. About 26 states are on the record to have carried out death penalty over the last ten years. The federal government and the military are still reluctant to respond to call by The UN to honor and dignify human life, by abolishing or adopting a cessation on the death penalty execution (Kim, 2016). The expense undertaken by the government to carry out the death penalty is costly to the national budget as the options available for the execution of the punishment honors the choice called for by the individuals facing death row. The US Food and Drug Administration stage demonstrations of fear over the shortage of supply of death row drugs and chemicals, citing the decline in the domestic and foreign industries to supply of drugs for the death row charges. The manufacturers of such drugs who are also religiously inclined claimed drugs are manufactured to save a life but not to take away life (Nikolaichev, 2014). Amnesty International along other popular International Human Rights Protection organizations are reported by Sithole, (2016) to have played a significant role in influencing over 133 nations across the world to abolish the capital punishment law. The American Bars Association’s resolutions and recommendations concerning the death penalty and call for moratorium on executions covered the issues such as evaluation of competence of the state counsels that prosecutes capital cases, proper adjudication procedures regarding capital cases, race discrimination and standards for determining eligibility for the death penalty (Coyne & Entzeroth, 2006). The American Bars Association being a heterogeneous team of competent legal minds from competent legal institutions plays a fundamental role in shaping the legal system within America, thus acts in best capacities to impact living in the United States favorable as per choices preferred by the Americans. Religion advocates against taking away of life, be it voluntary or scientific discourse perpetrated. Conclusion Developing a moratorium on the death penalty by the US government will help ascertain several advantages. First, the US will contribute to the world expression of honor and dignity for human life. The political sphere within the US will be positively shaped with the abolition of death penalty contribution to the reduction in civil wars, contributing to the objective, transparent and accountability in the judiciary management, thereby regaining the trust of the public in institutionalism. Lastly, other than safe measures against crime propulsion, the abolition of the death penalty will lead to the introduction of measures that are less costly and socially and economically impacting on the side of law-abiding citizens, who are also the taxpayers. The fact that death penalty is not blindly carried out without the consideration of relevant statutory laws and the preparation of policy is a contradiction to the constitutional provision in itself. From the stage of the verdict to the point at which the guilty persons are about face death row, the process itself is a premeditation of murder. The perpetrators are as well guilty in planning the prosecution to end the life of a fellow citizen which is not approved by the religious outlook. Life is only given by God. Therefore the death penalty execution process demonstrates the evil minds contemplating to commit murder, enshrined by legal stipulations that are established and implemented by humankind. The abolition of the death penalty will mark US’ honor of international treaties that are mainly channeled at promoting social endeavors that impact living progressively and positively. Capital punishment has mistakenly cost lives, therefore should be executed neither is it socio-economically changing the society. The adoption of a moratorium should be a decision the current POTUS should be thinking of so as to make America great like it used to be in the face of the world. The death row practice remains the only affair that tarnishes America’s name and supposedly could result in a negative influence on the developing nations who look up to the superpowers for social and economic support.

References Amnesty International. (2003). Death Penalty and Race: Race of Homicide Victims in Cases Resulting in an Execution since 1976. Retrieved from http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-and-race Bright, S. B. (2000). Will the Death Penalty Remain Alive in the Twenty-First Century?: International Norms, Discrimination, Arbitrariness, and the Risk of Executing the Innocent. Cătălina, M. (2013). The Right to Life. From the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman Punishment to the Abolition of the Death Penalty. Ovidius University Annals, Series Economic Sciences, 13(2). Coyne, R., & Entzeroth, L. (2006). Report regarding implementation of the American Bar Association's recommendations and resolutions concerning the death penalty and calling for a moratorium on executions. Geo. J. on Fighting Poverty, 4, 3. Donohue III, J. J., & Wolfers, J. (2006). Uses and abuses of empirical evidence in the death penalty debate (No. w11982). National Bureau of Economic Research. Erskine, H. (2010). The polls: Capital punishment. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 34(2), 290-307. Garrett, B. L. (2014). The Banality of Wrongful Executions. Michigan Law Review, 112(6), 979-992. Gross, S. R. (2007). Update: American public opinion on the death penalty-It's getting personal. Cornell L. Rev., 83, 1448. Gudorf, C. E. (2013). Christianity and opposition to the death penalty: late modern shifts. Dialog, 52(2), 99-109. Johnson, J. E., & Kelly, D. C. (2016). Serious mental illness and the death penalty. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 44(2), 274-276. Kim, D. (2016). International non-governmental organizations and the abolition of the death penalty. European Journal of International Relations, 22(3), 596-621. Kim, D. (2016). International non-governmental organizations and the abolition of the death penalty. European Journal of International Relations, 22(3), 596-621. Nikolaichev, B. O. (2014). Capital Punishment. Value Inquiry Book Series, 27649-50. Petersen, N., & Lynch, M. (2012). Prosecutorial discretion, hidden costs, and the death penalty: The case of Los Angeles County. Sarver, V. (2014). Abolishing the Death Penalty: An Untested Legal Argument. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(4), 808-817. doi:10.1007/s12103-014-9264-4 Sithole, K. (2016). NGO-IGO Relations: Amnesty International, Council of Europe, and Abolition of the Death Penalty. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 22(1), 79-97. Zivot, J. B. (2012). The absence of cruelty is not the presence of humanness: physicians and the death penalty in the United States. Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine, 7(1), 13.