Abortion Rights

Write about a disagreement/argument among two parties about the idea of abortion rights. Instructions and an example topic are provided below by the professor:

1. Introduce the topic and tell the reader why they should care about the disagreement

In the United States, states are permitted to sentence people to death for committing exceptionally heinous crimes. The US Supreme Court first declared the death penalty unconstitutional because the death penalty was deemed cruel and unusual, in violation of the 8th Amendment right to due process. The justices found that the crimes that warranted death and for whom the death penalty was sought varied drastically across the country. Likewise, methods like death by firing squad, public hanging, and numerous other methods of execution were judged cruel. As a result of the verdict, congress sought a way to administer the death penalty that would avoid these problems. Their work resulted in the lethal injection method used today and some restrictions on the types of crimes for which one could be put to death. Since its reinstitution, legislatures and voters have grappled with whether or not to abolish the death penalty.
In this paper, I will consider arguments for and against abolishing the death penalty that appeared in a 2012 California ballot measure. Analysis of the arguments on both sides of the debate reveals that disagreements boil down to differences about the value of retribution and social costs that one is willing to pay to achieve it.

2. Summarize the arguments

Amnesty International was responsible for the push to abolish the death penalty in California in 2012. They offer two arguments for abolishing the death penalty. First, we should abolish the death penalty because the extraordinary expense of executing inmates drains money from other law enforcement efforts. According to a study of the death penalty by a US 9th Circuit Judge and a Loyola Law School professor, California has executed 13 people since 1978, when the death penalty was reinstituted, and each execution cost taxpayers $308 million. Therefore, abolishing the death penalty would save taxpayers approximately $1 billion over 5 years. Second, they argue that sentencing even one innocent person to death is an unacceptable miscarriage of justice. The death penalty is irreversible, so the justice system cannot correct mistakes. Correcting mistakes that inevitably come from using a jury to convict criminals is essential to maintain the integrity and public faith in any justice system.
Opponents to abolishing the death penalty most often cite the the need to secure justice for victims. They argue that if we abolish the death penalty, then murderers will be able to live out their lives (on taxpayer funds) while their victims’ family and friends must live without their deceased loved ones. In short, opponents argue that not executing certain murderers fails to force them to pay for the crime that they have committed, and such failures to exact payment for a crime harms the victims and society at large.

3. Analyze the arguments

Both arguments are offering recommendations. Therefore, we can capture their reasoning in canonical recommendation format. Proponents of abolishing the death penalty reason:
The death penalty’s exorbitant costs will require us to divert funds from other public safety issues.
That is bad.
Other consequences of abolishing the death penalty don’t make up for what we lose.
__________________________________________________________________
Therefore, we should abolish the death penalty.