Capital punishment, commonly known as the death penalty, continues to affect disproportionally people of color, lower-income homes, and the male gender. Even worse, it lowers the law to the level of the crime. There is no justice to be found in revenge, and the law should attempt to help its transgressors rather than hurt. There is a long and documented history of humans stoning humans for crime, however human history should not stop our modern ability to overcome social injustices. Cavemen killed because they had no concept of rehabilitation; jurors today kill because they are stuck in this ancient reasoning.

     The state of Georgia pronounced Troy Davis dead at 11:08 p.m. Sep. 21, following a number of appeals, a federal court investigation, and a review by the Supreme Court. Many celebrities, politicians, and human rights groups advocated throughout the execution proceedings that Davis was innocent, and demanded he be declared innocent.

Senior Josh Strake said “There are more effective ways of punishment. If you kill any killer, or rape every rapist, it doesn’t solve the problem; it just makes it twice as evident”. Junior Chris Robotham agreed, he said “However unlikely, there is always a possibility of innocence. You can take someone out of prison, but not out of death”.

     The death penalty is frequently applied in cases involving the death of law enforcement. In the United States, only a handful of states allow the death penalty. At a recent primary debate, Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, was asked about the high rate of capital punishment in his state. What was more shocking than his answer was the blood-curdling cheers heard throughout the audience.

     The punishment provides a double standard. Instead of measured approaches to dealing justice, cases often involving significant politic factors use the death penalty for some larger message. Teresa Lewis, who was convicted of paying for the death of her husband and stepson and killed by the death penalty, provides one such case. According to the Wall Street Journal, her case was primarily controversial because she fell below the Supreme Court’s permissible threshold. The state of Virginia did not consider that her IQ was only two points above the level for intellectually disabled.

     She was executed on her first offence by a law without mercy. Her execution was society’s response to an apparent bias against women. There have been countless men who have killed their family with life sentences; but a woman who kills (more specifically, pays for the death of) her family is unacceptable. It is disgusting to the jurors who commonly deal out the death penalty based on ideology and prejudice.

     Cases like these, and Troy Davis’s, remind America just how far it has to go in terms of equality. There are legal tests a-plenty to establish guilt and punishment, but they are all flawed. The difference between a life sentence and a death sentence shows the juror’s views on human nature. Those who want death don’t believe in the ability for humans to change. Those who sentence life have some form of hope; that even if an inmate might not change their ways, at least the opportunity presented itself. Capital punishment poisons it victims not only with chemicals, but also a distrust in the human condition. Arguing against it is not only vital for its innocent victims, but for the progress towards equality and social justice in the society at large.