The Necessity of the Death Penalty in the American Criminal Justice System

The issue of the death penalty stands out as one of the most controversial subjects in the American Criminal justice system today. In fact, it is considered a form of capital punishment in America. A significant number of Americans are in support of the integration of the death penalty as a form of punishment, while others also strongly oppose the practice. Currently, there are a total of 31 states that have embraced the practice, as others like Colorado, Alaska, and Connecticut have rid themselves of this form of punishment. Despite the significant merits in most of the arguments against the practice, the death penalty should be embraced as a matter of deterrence, retribution, and restoration of morality.

Fear of Punishment and Deterrence

The deterrence effect on violent crimes has been one of the most endearing arguments that refute the death penalty. In the deterrence theory, individuals are rational participants comparing the possible reward of committing an offense and the cost involved when caught by the police and convicted (Beccaria, 2020). In this context, the death penalty is placed in the last category as the final expenditure, unchangeable and terrible enough to make one fearful. According to Saleh and Calvin (2023), the psychological barrier associated with executions makes people less likely to commit crimes like murder since they will be afraid to lose their lives, which is more than the possible gain. On the same note, Calegari (2025) argues that the presence of the death penalty helps to lower the homicide rates, as a criminal may feel that the death penalty is incurable and inescapable. Both sides confirm that capital punishment enhances accountability by revealing the most potent possible implications of heinous actions.

There is empirical evidence to support this deterrent claim. Research published in 2020-23 indicates that the active death penalty laws in the states had a slightly lower homicide rate than the abolitionist ones. Still, the cause-and-effect relationships have been contested (Saleh & Calvin, 2023). According to the proponents, the slightest decrease in violent crime is justification to keep it on because any number of murders prevented is a saved life (Calegari, 2025). In addition, the symbolic nature of the death penalty strengthens the power of the state to defend its people by sending the message that the most outrageous crimes will receive the most severe possible sentence (Ryan, 2024). This way, it would deter crime psychologically and in the larger society.

However, critics believe that the deterrence and executions correlation is inconclusive. Even the abolitionist states, like New Jersey and New Mexico, did not report a crime boom after the death penalty was ended, which implies that other variables (socioeconomic situation, policing policies, and rehabilitation) are stronger factors related to crime rates (DPIC, 2022; Bailey, 2021). Those opposing this also emphasize the fact that many killings are crimes of passion made under emotionally charged circumstances, and in which the calculations of consequences are not done rationally (Zimring, 2020). Despite these opposing views, advocates point out that even now, capital punishment serves as a deterrent to premeditated or even financially motivated offenses, including contract murders and gang-related violence, in which rational planning is more common (Saleh & Calvin, 2023). Therefore, since the deterrence aspect alone might not justify the death penalty, it is still a significant defense component in favor of it.

Proportionality of Retribution and Justice

In addition to the deterrent effect, the death penalty represents a philosophy of retribution where the crime should be commensurate. Retribution focuses on the fact that justice cannot only prevent crime in the future but also reestablish moral balance when a wrong is committed. As manifested by Forsberg (2025), the U.S. Supreme Court still agrees that retribution is considered a fair defense towards capital punishment, particularly when it comes to cases of murder and aggravated violence. Instead, Ryan (2024) also states that retributive justice enables criminals to pay the debt to society, which restores the balance between the harm done and justice delivered.

Opponents claim retribution sets in too late when vengeance and not justice are served. However, in the case of premeditated murder, the light penalties would not be a suitable measure of the extent of the crime, and the families and the community of the victims would have lacked closure (Wahyudi, 2024). This rule of proportionality maximizes responsibility to the extent that the punishment should be proportional to the irreparable damage done. The proponents of the death penalty state that failure to administer the death penalty in such cases would discredit the sanctity of human life and the effectiveness of the justice system (Forsberg, 2025). Retribution shows society's moral accountability in attaining fairness.

Reestablishing the Virtue and Social Trust

Capital punishment restores morals. The principle of lex talionis, or the law of eye for eye, holds that the punishment should be equal to the crime committed. Wahyudi (2024) insists that morality can be restored most effectively by executions. When a man is punished for killing another person on purpose, society provides justice to the sanctity of life and makes it obvious that it is something sacred and ungodly. This moral clarity may also prevent others by enhancing the social norms that bring human dignity and etiquette to a higher level.

The justice system is also enhanced by punishments that are severe enough to instill trust in people. The impression of being indulgent in the worst crimes and frequent implementation of capital punishment can ruin the trust of the citizens in the judicial system and educate society that the state is concerned about the search for justice (Ryan, 2024). It may not aid in finding a structural solution to the problem of racial discrimination or socioeconomic inequalities. However, it will assist individuals in regaining the hope that the most heinous offences will equally suffer punishment and, consequently, social stability will be achieved.

Overcoming the Concern of Wrongful Convictions

Critics tend to point out that a wrongful conviction is irreversible. Marginalized communities are disproportionately affected by judicial mistakes, biased decisions, and structural inequalities, a significant ethical issue (Musaddiq & Nadeem, 2025). Since the death penalty is irreversible, an innocent person suffers catastrophic impacts of a wrongful conviction, and maybe the justice system is compromised.

Although these issues are legitimate, the preventive measures incorporated in the American capital cases mitigate these risks. According to Saleh and Calvin (2023), capital cases require numerous investigations, trials, and appeals, which provide convicts with various chances to challenge evidence. No system is perfect, but these measures ensure that wrongful executions are so few in comparison with the overall count of capital cases. According to critics, there are still challenges, especially for poor defendants who are less likely to afford better representation (Bailey, 2021). Addressing these inequalities should be instituted by new policies that will help to improve fairness.

In conclusion, the death penalty is the only way to create deterrence, retribution, and restoration of morality against all criminal activities. The death penalty is one of the strongest deterrents, with the comparatively acceptable issues of injustices and institutional inequalities. It is also a moral reinstatement tool. The use of it is a menace to the commission of heinous crimes. Additionally, it gives people hope that justice will take place. The national policy that is less decentralized would introduce the similarity of the states, and the deterrence would be painless and more attractive to the citizens. And lastly, much as the death penalty has a lot of issues in its related attachment, it is a vital component in the course of dispensing justice.